2009-2010 Self-Study WASC Action Plan - Julian Charter School

JULIAN CHARTER SCHOOL WASC SELF-STUDY 2009-2010

NOTES QUESTIONS 

INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL 

ii

GOVERNING BOARD 

JULIAN CHARTER SCHOOL 

2009-2010 

ROXANNE HUEBSCHER, PRESIDENT 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARENT 

KEVIN OGDEN, MEMBER 

JUSD SUPERINTENDENT 

KEESHA PETERSON, SECRETARY 

ORANGE COUNTY PARENT 

SUZANNE SCHUMACHER, TREASURER 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY PARENT 

VACANT 

COMMUNITY MEMBER 

P.O. BOX 2470, 1704 CAPE HORN 

JULIAN, CA 92036-2470 

WWW.JULIANCHARTERSCHOOL.ORG 

iii


KEY ACADEMIC PROGRAM LEADS 

JULIAN CHARTER SCHOOL 2009-2010 

JENNIFER CAUZZA 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

MELANIE MARKS 

DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 

WENDY PARCEL 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, HIGH SCHOOL 

SHERYL MCKAY 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 9-12 SITE-BASED PROGRAMS 

KARIN KNUTSON 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, K-8 

SUE MILLER HURST 

DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 

K-8 SITE-BASED PROGRAMS 

CLAIRE ROUSH 

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SPECIAL EDUCATION 

LISA SIMMONS 

ACADEMIC COUNSELOR, HOME STUDY 

ELENA HANLEY 

ACADEMIC COUNSELOR, SITE-BASED PROGRAMS 

iv

Organizational Chart 2009-2010 

Governing Board 

Executive Director 

Jennifer Cauzza 

Advisory Council 

Representative Members 

Director of Education 

Melanie Marks 

Dir. Research & Innovation 

Sue Miller Hurst 

Chief Business Officer 

Chad Leptich 

Dir. of Human Resources 

Cameron Byrd 

Administrative Manager 

Yvette Lares 

Assistant Director, High School 

Wendy Parcel 

Assistant Director, Site-Based 

Programs--Sheryl McKay 

Information Technology 

Aaron Lorenz 

Payroll/Resource Center Manager 

Cameron Byrd 

Administrative Manager 

Yvette Lares 

Admin Assistant/Paper Reader 

Academic Counselor, HS 

6-12 Site Coordinators 

PVA—C. Masters 

Technology Team 

Reps: Main Office, ELT, Tech and IT 

Resource Center Team Lead 

Shawn Glahn 

Admissions 

Diane Lingo 

Department Chairs 

Content Area Specialists 

AA Interim—S. McKay 

MMSA—D. Lengyel 

Technology Committee 

Lead Tech Teacher, Teachers/EFs 

Resource Center Staff 

Registrars: Barbara Jones, 

Leigh Crippen, Laurie Shuler 

High School Facilitators 

INSITE Program 

Lead Technology Teacher 

Safety Net Tutors 

Assistant Director, Special 

Education—Claire Roush 

Admin Assistant 

Special Education Staff 

Accountability Coordinator 

Diana Hadfield 

MHSA/LC—C. Pritchard 

SDA/LC—R. Satterfield 

LC/AC Staff 

Academic Counselor, AC 

Assistant Director, K-8 

Karin Knutson 

Admin Assistant/Paper Reader 

Elementary Facilitators 

Field Trips 

K-8 Curriculum Team 

Safety Net Tutors 

K-8 Academies 

Jennifer Cauzza/Sue Miller 

Innovation Centre-Temecula 

Innovation Centre-Encinitas 

Phoenix Learning Center 

Facilities 

Jennifer Cauzza 

Records Clerk 

Gina Moretti 

Purchasing Clerk/Vendors 

Cindy Sanders 

Accounting Clerk 

Linda Flint 

Cabinet 

● 

Educational Leadership Team ● 

Department Lead 

● 

Academy Site Coordinator ● 

Other Direct Reports ● 

Teams/Responsibilities ● 

v


FOCUS ON LEARNING 

2009-2010 WASC SELF-STUDY 

LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE 

SELF-STUDY COORDINATORS 

MELANIE MARKS 

DIANA HADFIELD 

ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP CHAIRS 

JENNIFER CAUZZA 

MELANIE MARKS 

CURRICULUM CHAIRS 

KARIN KNUTSON 

CLAIRE ROUSH 

INSTRUCTION CHAIRS 

SHERYL MCKAY 

RYAN SATTERFIELD 

ASSESSMENT/ACCOUNTABILITY CHAIRS 

WENDY PARCEL 

ALAN TUPAJ 

SCHOOL CULTURE AND SUPPORT CHAIRS 

LISA SIMMONS 

CAMERON BYRD 

vi

JCS WASC 2009-2010 Focus Groups 

Organizational Leadership Curriculum Instruction 

Cauzza, Jennifer Executive Director Knutson, Karin Asst. Director, K-8 McKay, Sheryl Asst. Director, Site Programs 

Marks, Melanie Director of Education Roush, Claire Asst. Director, SPED Satterfield, Ryan Cert. Site Coordinator, SDA 

Marks, Jason 

Cert. Site Coordinator, NCA 

Allen, Amanda AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Azizi, Durana EF, H.S. (INSITE) Bell, Chris Lead Technology Teacher 

Baltazar Flores, Maria Resource Center Specialist Bahlmann, Paul AC Teacher, H/SS, MA Burke, Jamie AC Teacher, K-8, IC-E 

Betian, Janice EF, H.S. Bost, Laura H.S. Specialist, Math Campbell, Cheryl AC Teacher, K-8, PLC 

Biederman, Eric AC Teacher, Math, MA Bourdette, Margaret AC Teacher, ENG, PVA Carpenter, April Site Secretary, SDA 

Blough, Kathleen AC Teacher, K-8, PLC Cassis, Jessica AC Teacher, K-8, IC-E Crippen, Leigh Registrar, 6-9 

Clark, Nan SPED Teacher, 504 Cross, Ronald AC Teacher, Math, PVA D'Carpio, Patricia EF, K-8 

Clark, Sara AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Deal, Jami Site Secretary, IC-T Drake, Ann Occupational Therapist 

Cook, Amy AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Delgadillo, Diahann AC Teacher, K-8, PLC Feser, Jasmine AC Teacher, SCI, AA 

Cummings, Lori EF, H.S. Doup-Conner, Erin EF, K-8 Fitts, Benjamin AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T 

Dana, Katie Resource Center Specialist Duffy, Jean Admissions/Field Trips Garrett, Kathleen SPED Teacher 

Fleischli, Karen EF, K-8 Faison, Karen Site Secretary, MA Gillette, Donna EF, K-8, H.S. 

Flint, Linda Accounting Clerk Fiocca, Sharon Speech/Language Hagen, Suzanne AC Teacher, K-8, PLC 

Gher, Eileen AC Teacher, K-8, IC-E Flajole, Marcie EF, H.S. (INSITE) Hartman, Christy H.S. Specialist, ENG 

Griggs, Colleen Administrative Assistant Glahn, Zach Resource Center Specialist Heroux-Glahn, Shawn Resource Center Team Lead 

Heckmyer, Daniel AC Teacher, Math, SDA Goalwin, Pam EF, K-8, CT SCI Holemo, Donna Speech/Language 

Hrehovcsik, Wendi Instructional Aide/Parent Guthrie, Tamara AC/H.S. Specialist, ENG Hoody, Linda AC Teacher, SCI, AA 

Jasperson, Kelli EF, H.S. Holderby, Theresa Site Secretary, PVA Johansen, Ray H.S. Specialist, SCI 

Lightbody, Eileen Receptionist, SDLC Holter, Regina AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Jones, Barb Registrar, 10-12 

Lorenz, Aaron IT Manager Hovenic, Mike AC Teacher, MA Landau, Amanda AC Teacher, K-8, PLC 

Luke, Elysia Instructional Aide/Parent Izydorek, Joann EF, K-8 Langevin, Constance Site Secretary, PLC 

Mathews, Linda AC, K-8, MMA Judd, Lindsey AC Teacher, K-8, PLC Larson, Miranda EF, K-8 

Meyer, Cathy AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Koch, Karen AC Teacher, K-8, SDA Lopez, Jr., Robert Administrative Assistant 

Mullins, Tamara H.S. DC/Specialist, ENG Kotanan, Kelly AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Marsaglia, Kelli School Psychologist 

Orrell, Lori EF, K-8 Lengyel, Dori Cert. Site Coordinator, MA Masters, Connie Cert. Site Coordinator, PVA 

Paulsen, David AC Teacher, H/SS, PVA Liva-Beile, Laura EF, K-8 McCabe, Nancy EF, K-8, CT LA 

Perea, Sandra Class. Site Coordinator, PLC Ludwig, Ellen AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T (leave) Miller Hurst, Sue Cert. Site Coordinator, K-8 

Prather, Sharon AC Tchr/Asst Crd, AA, PVA Manis, Cordelia Class. Site Coordinator, PLC Naylor, Gary AC Teacher, Math, NCA 

Roos, Roberta EF, H.S. Matthews, Kristy H.S. Dept. Chair, H/SS Partida, Veronica Resource Center Specialist 

Sanders, Cindy Purchasing Clerk Miller, Kathleen AC Teacher, K-8, PLC Perez, Star Student 

Sharp, Rebecca Instructional Aide, PVA Miller, Mark AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Rogalski, Jason AC Teacher, SCI, AA 

Spahr, Kelly EF, K-8 Olea, Reyna Instructional Aide, PLC Sheehey, Jennifer AC Teacher, ENG, MA 

Thibodeaux, Lisa AC Teacher, ENG, SDA Piccola, Mary Lou AC Teacher, K-8, MA Silva, Tara H.S. Dept. Chair, SCI 

Thompson, Doug EF, H.S. (INSITE) Sadat, Eida EF, K-8 Stein, Garrick AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T 

Trogden, Stephanie EF, K-8 Shehadeh, Khoury AC Teacher, MA Surman, Jacquie Cert. Site Coordinator, MLC 

Walters, Pam SPED Teacher Smith, Kristine EF, H.S. Thompson, Debra Volunteer, INSITE 

Whann, Amy AC Teacher, SCI, MA Stubbs, Joanie EF, H.S. Thornton, Sarah Administrative Assistant 

* No longer with school Taylor, Lorie EF, K-8 Webb, Melissa EF, K-8 

Thomas, Denise AC Teacher, K-8, PLC Webster, Kathy H.S. Specialist, Math 

Whitworth, Kathleen EF, H.S., FL 

vii

JCS WASC 2009-2010 Focus Groups 

Assessment & Accountability 

School Culture and Support 

Parcel, Wendy Asst. Director, High School Simmons, Lisa EF, Academic Counselor HS 

Tupai, Alan H.S. Dept. Chair, Math Byrd, Cameron Director of Human Resources 

Focus Group Key 

Adams, Marjorie Class. Site Coordinator, MA Bearchell, Brian EF, K-8 No longer with school or contractor 

Ardis, Steve EF, H.S. Bearchell, Megan Student HS Home Study 

Banta, Anita LC Teacher, K-8, MLC, SDLC Beers, Karen AC Teacher, FL, SDA H.S. High School 

Bell, Erica EF, H.S. BergmanKridler, Mary AC Teacher, ENG/FL, MA AC Academy 

Blumberg, Ivy AC Teacher, SCI, SDA Blakeborough, Jenny EF, K-8 MLC Murrieta Learning Center 

Brady, Jane AC Advisor, MA Blough, Jeremy AC Teacher, H/SS, AA NCA (closed) North County Academy 

Burrows, Teresa Instructional Aide, PVA Bonanza, Liz AC Teacher, VAPA, MA EF Educational Facilitator 

Cabezas, Shannon AC Teacher, K-8, IC-E Clark, Julianne AC Teacher, K-8, PLC FL Foreign Language 

Condron, Tammy EF, H.S. Daeley, Kim EF, K-8 SDA San Diego Academy 

Doering, Daria AC Teacher, K-8, NCA Eidbo, Susan EF, K-8 VAPA Visual and Performing Arts 

Eibling, Caroline AC Teacher, K-8, IC-E Fazio, Angelica EF, K-8 IC-T Innovation Centre, Temecula 

Fischer, Pam SPED Teacher Hauck, Michaiah Program Secretary, IC-T IC-E Innovation Centre, Encinitas 

Frogge, Betsy EF, K-8, CT Math Juleen, Gary Cert. Site Coordinator, AA PLC Phoenix Learning Center 

Hadfield, Diana Accountability Coordinator Karim, Nazish AC Teacher, ENG, PVA CT Curriculum Team 

Hall, Audra AC Advisor, AA Kunz, Abbie EF DC Department Chair 

Hanley, Elena EF, Academic Counselor AC Labovitz, Aaron EF, H.S. (INSITE) AA Alpine Academy 

Hogan, Julie EF, K-8 Lares, Yvette Administrative Manager MA Murrieta Academy 

Horvath, Michael AC Advisor/Sports, SDA Lindquist, Rebecca EF, K-8 LC Learning Center 

Jasso-Rodriguez, Elise EF, K-8 Lingo, Diane Admissions SDLC San Diego Learning Center 

Johansen, Jackie H.S. Specialist, SCI Marquis, Anya-Kristina H.S. Specialist, H/SS MLC Murrieta Learning Center 

Kuhlmann, Peter AC, AA McCain, Meredith AC Teacher, K-8, PLC SCI Science 

Lantz, Ann-Charlotte Instructional Aide, PLC McKay, Diane School Psychologist PVA Pine Valley Academy 

Lucas, Erin H.S. Dept. Chair, ENG Moyer, Susan MMRC Receptionist SPED Special Education 

Lyons, Anna Administrative Assistant Nockels, Dessa EF, K-8, CT H/SS ENG English 

McBride, Alena AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Revivo, Sheila LC Teacher, K-8, SDLC H/SS History/Social Science 

Miller, Misty AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Satterfield, Amanda EF, K-8 MMRC/MMC Murrieta Mtg/Resource Center 

Molles, Kristen AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Selby, Jes H.S. Specialist, H/SS OC Orange County 

Moretti, Gina Records Clerk Sena, Melissa Cert. Site Coordinator, OC 

O'Donnell, Nannette EF, K-8 Sevenans, Lorinda EF, K-8 

Porter, Nancy EF, K-8, CT Technology Shuler, Laurie Registrar, K-5 

Pritchard, Carol Cert. Site Coordinator, MA Siders, Christine AC Teacher, Math, AA 

Rogers, Caroline AC Teacher, VAPA, PVA, AA Sims, Ken EF, K-8 New Hires 

Stewart, Jerry EF, K-8 Stenzel, Dana EF, K-8 Johansen, Kevin SPED Teacher 

Suliteanu, Cheryl AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Straite, Jennifer H.S. Specialist, H/SS Leptich, Chad Chief Business Officer 

Surran, Kristin SPED Teacher Taylor, Richard SPED Teacher Moyer, Tyler Warehouse Clerk 

Swanson, Cyndee EF, H.S. Webster, Tiffiny AC Teacher, K-8, IC-T Thompson, Camie SPED Consultant 

Tidwell, Sue AC Teacher, ENG, AA Wells, Stephanie Site Secretary, AA Keene, Michael AC Teacher, ENG, SDA, PVA 

Wagner, Bob AC Teacher, Math, MA, SDA Whitcomb, Katherine Class. Site Coordinator, SDLC Clark, Michelle Warehouse Clerk 

viii 

Williams, Erika AC Teacher, K-8, IC-E Moyer, Susan Receptionist, MMC


2009-2010 WASC SELF-STUDY 

HOME GROUP LEADS 

ENGLISH 

MATHEMATICS 

HISTORY/SOCIAL SCIENCE 

SCIENCE 

WENDY PARCEL 

KARIN KNUTSON 

CLAIRE ROUSH 

SHERYL MCKAY 

DEPARTMENT CHAIRS AND 

CURRICULUM TEAM LEADS 

ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS 

TAMMY MULLINS 

CHRISTY HARTMAN 

NANCY MCCABE 

MATHEMATICS 

ALAN TUPAJ 

BETSY FROGGE 

HISTORY/SOCIAL SCIENCE 

KRISTY MATTHEWS 

DESSA NOCKELS 

SCIENCE 

TARA SILVA 

PAM GOALWIN 

TECHNOLOGY 

CHRIS BELL 

NANCY PORTER 

ix



WASC VISITING COMMITTEE 

DR. LARRY CORNELLISON (LEAD) 

Teacher 

635 Morro Hills Rd. 

Fallbrook, CA 92028 

MR. MITCHELL BROWN 

Teacher 

440 Devonshire Glen 

Escondido, CA 92027 

MRS. BONNIE EBRIGHT 

Academic Support Director 

P.O. Box 36 

Apple Valley, CA 92307 

DR. FRANCENE KAPLAN 

Teacher 

Coast High School 

15871 Springdale Street 

Huntington Beach, CA 92649 

MRS. MARY LEEDS 

Bilingual Teacher 

3711 Corral Canyon Road 

Bonita, CA 91902 

MR. ROBERT SCHWARTZ 

Principal 

View Park Preparatory Accelerated Charter High School 

5701 South Crenshaw Blvd. 

Los Angeles, CA 90043 

TBD 

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introductory Material .................................................................................................. ii 

Governing Board Julian Charter School 2009‐2010 ....................................................... iii 

Key Academic Program Leads Julian Charter School 2009‐2010 .................................. iv 

Julian Charter School 2009‐2010 Organizational Chart .................................................. v 

Focus on Learning 2009‐2010 WASC Self‐Study Leadership Committee .................... vi 

Focus on Learning 2009‐2010 WASC Self‐Study Focus Groups................................... vii 

Focus on Learning 2009‐2010 WASC Self‐Study Home Group Leads .......................... ix 

Department Chairs and Curriculum Team Leads.......................................................... ix 

Focus on Learning WASC Visiting Committee ................................................................ x 

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. xi 

Chapter I: ....................................................................................................................... 1 

Student/Community Profile ........................................................................................ 3 

Program Categories ........................................................................................................... 4 

Ethnicity .............................................................................................................................. 5 

Authorizing Agency Relationship ..................................................................................... 5 

WASC Accreditation History ............................................................................................ 5 

Julian Charter School Mission .......................................................................................... 6 

ESLRs .................................................................................................................................. 7 

Student Performance ................................................................................................... 9 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)...................................................................................... 9 

Student Enrollment........................................................................................................... 9 

Student Population Information ..................................................................................... 10 

Special Needs Population ................................................................................................. 11 

Language Proficiency ........................................................................................................ 11 

Student Attendance Rates ................................................................................................ 11 

Student Suspension and Expulsion Rates ...................................................................... 12 

Mobility ............................................................................................................................. 12 

Socioeconomic Status ...................................................................................................... 12 

Staff ................................................................................................................................ 13 

xi


Student Performance Data ....................................................................................... 15 

Academic Performance Index (API) .............................................................................. 15 

STAR Test Results ........................................................................................................... 15 

English-Language Arts ............................................................................................... 15 

Mathematics .............................................................................................................. 16 

California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) .............................................................. 16 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).................................................................................... 17 

Process and Perception Data......................................................................................... 18 

Chapter II: ................................................................................................................. 19 

Profile Summary ........................................................................................................ 21 

Notable Areas .................................................................................................................. 21 

Areas of Substantive Improvement ............................................................................... 22 

Areas of Need ................................................................................................................. 22 

Key Questions with Respect to Student Performance ................................................. 24 

Critical Areas of Need .................................................................................................... 25 

Chapter III:................................................................................................................ 27 

Progress Report ........................................................................................................ 29 

Technology ..................................................................................................................... 29 

Mathematics .................................................................................................................. 32 

Final Exam Policy .......................................................................................................... 34 

Writing ........................................................................................................................... 35 

High School Program Structure .................................................................................... 37 

Professional Development ............................................................................................ 39 

Drop Out and Transitional Rates ..................................................................................40 

Chapter IV: ................................................................................................................ 41 

Self-Study Findings .................................................................................................. 43 

A. Organization ............................................................................................................. 43 

B. Standards-based Student Learning: Curriculum...................................................... 59 

C. Standards-based Student Learning: Instruction ....................................................... 71 

D. Standards-based Student Learning: Assessment and Accountability .................... 77 

E. School Culture and Support for Student Personal and Academic Growth ............. 85 

Chapter V: ................................................................................................................. 93 

xii

Schoolwide Action Plan 2009-2012 .......................................................................... 95 

Action Plan Item #1........................................................................................................ 95 

Action Plan Item #2....................................................................................................... 97 

Action Plan Item #3...................................................................................................... 99 

Appendix .................................................................................................................. 103 

Appendix Table of Contents ....................................................................................... 104 

A. Perception Data .................................................................................................105 

B. Schoolwide Goals .............................................................................................. 108 

C. Strategic Plan Summary .................................................................................... 110 

D. Supplementary Profile Data ............................................................................... 111 

E. SARC................................................................................................................... 133 

F. CBEDS Information Form ................................................................................. 143 

G. School Budget ................................................................................................... 144 

H. Four-Year Graduation Plans ............................................................................. 148 

I. Curriculum Order Forms (Standards-based Texts) .........................................150 

J. Acronyms ...........................................................................................................159 

K. JCS Terminology ................................................................................................ 161 

L. Key Evidence List by Category ..........................................................................165 

xiii


xiv

CHAPTER I: 

STUDENT/COMMUNITY PROFILE 

Chapter 1: Student/Community Profile 

Julian Charter School Focus on Learning 2009-2010 1



2 Julian Charter School Focus on Learning 2009-2010

STUDENT/COMMUNITY PROFILE 

Julian Charter School (JCS) is an independent study K-12 charter school sponsored by 

the Julian Union (Elementary) School District serving approximately 1,950 students 

(CBEDS 2008-2009) from San Diego, Imperial, Orange, and Riverside counties. 

The school was established in November 1999 to meet the needs of 

students who were underserved by traditional delivery systems of 

education or for families who had a strong desire to home school. 

Approximately two thirds of the students are home study students 

with the remaining one third enrolled in an Academy program. 

By law, the school is allowed to serve students in the three counties 

adjacent to San Diego County (Orange, Riverside and Imperial), but 

must have the majority of enrollment in the county of residence to 

maintain facilities outside the sponsoring county. Due to the size of 

Imperial County and the scattered population centers, the school 

has chosen to focus on serving students in the other three counties. 

JCS’s program, since inception, has been that of a non-classroom 

based independent study school. As more of the student population 

matriculated into the higher grades, many parents requested a more 

traditional, but flexible, classroom-based educational option for their 

older students. Consequently, a two- to three- day a week site-based 

academy program was introduced in 2005 to complement the existing 

home study (K-12), learning center (K-8) program. 

The high school program offers high school classes at four levels of 

instruction: college prep (CP), non-college prep (NCP), basic, and 

foundational (non-diploma bound). Options within the first three 

levels of instruction include: specialist-designed course of study, portfolio, 

INSITE (four days a week onsite support), independent study 

(more frequent meetings) or the academy program (primarily CP). 

High school home study students may take one or two classes at an 

academy while the elementary academies (2007-08) are self-contained. 

Julian Charter School does not offer Honors or AP classes. Students 

may earn college credit by taking courses at a community college. 

Integral components of the K-8 and 9-12 programs and key elements 

of the home study and academy programs are shown on the 

following page. 



PROGRAM CATEGORIES 

K-8 

Personalized Learning 

Student Study Team 

Safety Net (SN) 

Middle School 

Academic Counseling 

Special Education 

Services 

Curriculum Team 

Resource Center and 

Parent Library 

Professional Learning 

Communities 

Events, Labs, Field 

Trips, and Clubs 

62% of Enrollment* 

Instruction 

Certificated 

Educational Facilitator 

Assistant Director 

Learning Center 

Classes and Vendor 

Course Instruction 

Education Units (EUs) 

Virtual Classes and 

Online Support 

Curriculum Choice 

Parent Support 

Groups (by County) 


K-8 Home StudyParent-Teacher 

Onsite Classes 

Three Sites: K-5, K-6, 

and K-8 

Riverside and San 

Diego Counties 

Certificated Teachers 

Two Shared Site 

Administrators 

Parent Volunteers 

and PTOs 

Small Class Sizes 

Focus: Project-based 

or Inquiry Learning 


K-8 AcademyFour-Day a Week 

Learning 


9-12Personalized 

Safety Net (SN) 

Academic Counseling 


Services 

Department Chairs 

Resource Center 

Professional Learning 

Communities 

Events, Intramurals, 

Science Labs, Field 

Trips, and Clubs 

College Prep (CP), 

Non-College Prep 

(NCP), Basic, and 

Foundational Classes 


Instruction 

Certificated 


Core Content Area 

Specialists 

Academy Classes 

Site-based or Online 

Tutoring 

Specialist-designed 

Course of Study, 

Portfolio, INSITE or 

Independent Study 

Program Options 

Parental Curriculum 

Options Available 


9-12 Home StudyParent-Teacher 

Onsite Classes 

Four Sites/Five 

Programs 2009-10: 

6-8, 6-12, 7-12, 9-12 (2) 

Riverside and San 

Diego Counties 

Classes Open to Home 

Study Students 

Certificated Teachers 

Assistant Director and 

Site Coordinator 

Academy Advisor 

(Dropped in 2009-10) 

PTOs 

Small Class Sizes 

Direct Instruction 


6-12 AcademyTwo-Day a Week 

* Enrollment October 2009 (More Academy Students/Less Home Study Students than 2008) 

Students at Julian Charter are part of an independent study education model and are 

schooled through home study, a combination of home study and learning center classes 

(K-8), or a combination of home study and academy classes (K-12). 

* The appendix contains additional information regarding Julian Charter School programs, 

terminology, and acronyms. 



ETHNICITY 

The ethnicity of our students for the past three years is shown in 

Table 1. Our student population is similar to our sponsoring 

district’s make-up and remains relatively stable from year to year. 

Table 1: Ethnicity Make-up of Students 

Ethnicity 

JCS 

2006-07 

JCS 

2007-08 

JCS 

2008-09 

Chartering 

District 

2008-09 

State 

2008-09 

Am. Indian/Alaska Native 2.8% 2.3% 2.0% 4.2% .7% 

Asian/P. Islander/Filipino 3.8% 4.3% 4.0% 3.6% 11.7% 

Hispanic or Latino 15.6% 15.7% 13.3% 14.8% 49.0% 

African American 4.7% 5.3% 3.5% 3.0% 7.3% 

White 71.4% 70.2% 71.9% 70.0% 27.9% 

Multiple/No Response 1.7% 2.1% 5.3% 4.5% 3.4% 

Source: DataQuest 

AUTHORIZING AGENCY RELATIONSHIP 

The school receives enormous support from its sponsoring district 

and, in fact, has the reputation of having the best relationship with 

its chartering body of any charter school (over 80) in San Diego 

County. There are six items that stand out in particular: 1) the 

superintendent serves on the school’s governing board, 2) the 

district is willing to provide cash flow advances, 3) the charter 

school and the district share (co-hire) personnel, when appropriate, 

such as in business services, 4) the district serves as the school’s 

lead special education body and provides access to the local SELPA, 

5) the district assists with eRate planning and filing, and 6) the 

district provides a building for our office services in Julian. 

WASC ACCREDITATION HISTORY 

The Commission approved Julian Charter School’s 2004 application 

for candidacy status with a 2007 mid-term review. 

Table 2: WASC Accreditation History 

Year Date Self-Study WASC Manual Outcome Term Next Comments 

2004 3/7/2004 to 

3/10/2004 

1st Focus on 

Learning – WASC 

Mid-term 

review 

3/6 2007 Granted six-year 

term with mid-term 

2007 4/6/2007 2nd 3-year term 

Revisit Procedure 

MISSION, VISION, AND CORE VALUES 

3 2010 

review 



Julian Charter School Mission 

Julian Charter School’s mission is to provide an exemplary personalized learning 

program in a resource-rich environment. We are dedicated to nurturing passionate 

lifelong learners. 

Tag Line/Vision Statement 

JCS—the right choice for personalized learning 

Core Values 

Creativity and Innovation: 

Envision and explore rich teaching and learning 

opportunities. 

Commitment: 

Educate all students to their full potential and 

uphold the greater good of the school. 

Choice: 

Empower individual paths and goals through 

personalized learning. 

Excellence: 

Integrity and Compassion: 

Foster a climate of high expectations, quality, and 

accountability. 

Model honesty, dignity, fairness, and responsibility 

while demonstrating respect and understanding. 



Framework for 21st Century Learning (ESLRs) 

As part of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation process, Julian Charter 

School stakeholders evaluated and revised our Expected Schoolwide Learning Results (ESLRs) in 

the fall of 2009. The ESLRs are the skills we, as a school, want each of our students to possess. 

Content Knowledge • Skills • Expertise • Literacies • Multi-dimensional Abilities 

Julian Charter School has developed a vision for 21st century student 

success in the new global economy. 

21st Century Expected Schoolwide Learning Results and Support Systems 

21ST CENTURY STUDENT OUTCOMES 

The elements described as “21st century student outcomes” are the skills, 

knowledge and expertise students should master to succeed in work and life in 

the 21st century. That is, students need to obtain Learning and Innovation 

Skills (critical thinking, problem solving, creativity and innovation, etc.), 

Information, Media and Technology Skills, Life and Career Skills (initiative and 

self-direction, among others), and Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes 

(global awareness, financial literacy, and so forth). 



Content 

Mastery 

ESLR #1 

ESLR #2 

ESLR #3 

Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes 

Mastery of core subjects and 21st century themes is essential for students 

in the 21st century. Core subjects include English, reading or language arts, world 

languages, visual and performing arts, mathematics, economics, science, geography, 

history, government and civics. 

JCS believes our school must move beyond a focus on basic competency 

in core subjects to promoting a broader understanding of academic content 

that weaves 21st century interdisciplinary themes into core subjects: 

• Global Awareness 

• Financial, Economic, Business and Entrepreneurial Literacy 

• Civic Literacy 

• Health Literacy 

• Service Learning 

Learning and Innovation Skills 

Students are prepared for increasingly complex life and work environments 

in the 21st century with learning and innovation skills that include: 

• Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 

• Communication and Collaboration 

• Creativity and Innovation 

Information, Media and Technology Skills 

Students exhibit a range of functional and critical thinking skills in the technology 

and media-driven environment of the 21st century such as: 

• Information Literacy 

• Media Literacy 

• ICT (Information, Communications and Technology) Literacy 

Life and Career Skills 

Students are able to navigate complex life and work environments in the globally 

competitive information age with life and career skills that include: 

• Flexibility and Adaptability 

• Initiative and Self-Direction 

• Social and Cross-Cultural Skills 

• Productivity and Accountability 

• Leadership, Character and Responsibility 

21ST CENTURY SUPPORT SYSTEMS 

Developing a comprehensive framework for 21st century learning requires more 

than identifying specific skills, content knowledge, expertise and literacies. An 

innovative support system must be created to help students master the multidimensional 

abilities required of them in the 21st century. JCS has identified five 

critical support systems that lead to student mastery of 21st century skills: 

• 21st Century Standards 

• Assessment of 21st Century Skills 

• 21st Century Curriculum and Instruction 

• 21st Century Professional Development 

• 21st Century Learning Environments 

8 

Life and Career Skills IMT Skills Learning/Innovation Skills 

Outcomes Close-up 

• Reason Effectively 

• Use Systems Thinking 

• Make Judgments/Decisions 

• Solve Problems 

• Communicate Clearly 

• Collaborate with Others 

• Think Creatively 

• Work Creatively with Others 

• Implement Innovation 

• Access and Evaluate Information 

• Use and Manage Information 

• Analyze Media 

• Create Media Products 

• Apply Technology Effectively 

• Manage Projects 

• Produce Results 

• Guide and Lead Others 

• Be Responsible to Others 

• Model Good Character Traits 

• Adapt to Change 

• Be Flexible 

• Manage Goals and Time 

• Work Independently 

• Be Self-directed Learners 

• Interact Effectively with Others 

• Work Effectively in Diverse Teams 

Outcomes Examples 

OUTCOME: Frame, analyze and 

synthesize information to solve 

problems and answer questions. 

(Grade Eight) EXAMPLE: After 

writing an informative or persuasive 

piece, create a “word cloud” of the 

writing with a tool like wordle.com 

to represent the frequency of word 

use: the more frequent the word, the 

larger it is displayed. As the writer 

reads the selection aloud with the 

word cloud in view, Elluminate 

groups analyze the visual representation 

and evaluate the match between 

the prominent words and the 

writer’s intention. 

OUTCOME: Demonstrate creativity 

and share new ideas/perspectives by 

incorporating work in H/SS with 

technology, to invent products such 

as plays, games, dances, puzzles, 

models, writings, and speeches. 

(Grade Twelve) EXAMPLE: Study 

FDR’s Fireside Chats, and then script 

and record one which follows the 

last of the real ones (6/12/44) for any 

date between 6/12/44, and 4/12/45, 

when Roosevelt died. Make the 

recording available for download.

STUDENT PERFORMANCE 

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) 

JCS met three of the four required performance targets (percent proficient, 

API, and graduation rate) through 2007-2008. Historically, we 

have not met the required 95 percent participation rate. Using the 

federal testing participation rate formula, our participation rates have 

varied from 88 percent to 93 percent the last three years, depending 

on the significant subgroup and year. We see improvement and continue 

to investigate ways to decrease the number of families waiving 

(3%) which should bring our participation rate to the required level. 

STUDENT ENROLLMENT 

JCS has shown a fairly constant growth pattern since the 2000-2001 

school year. As shown in Chart 1, our student population has almost 

tripled since 2000 with a consistent annual influx of students during 

the fall and winter months. About two thirds of our students (64%) 

are home schooled, with the rest (36%) utilizing our academy program 

(see Chart 2). A similar statistic exists between the K-8 and 

9-12 populations (62% versus 38% respectively). San Diego County 

currently accounts for 51% of the enrollment. The school fluctuates 

for API purposes from being classed as an elementary school to a 

secondary school depending on the grade-level numbers. Enrollment 

increases at each grade span (K-5, 6-8, 9-12) with a dramatic 

increase (40+ students) between grades eight and nine. Grade 12 

enrollment in some years is almost double that of kindergarten. 

Chart 1: Enrollment Trends 

Enrollment Trends 2000 to 2008 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 

Enrollment 732 1,154 1,185 1,310 1,365 1,601 1,664 1,872 1,962 

Source: DataQuest Enrollment January 2010: 2150 




Chart 2: Enrollment by Academy/Program Enrollment Comparison 

Number of Students 

N = 1956 

Academy Enrollment versus Home Study 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

7% 6% 3% 2% 4% 

7% 

4% 

1% 

36% 

MA SDA PVA NCA AA IC-T PLC IC-E Total 

AC 

64% 

Total 

HS 

70% 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

Enrollment Percent 7% 6% 3% 2% 4% 7% 4% 1% 36% 64% 

Enrollment Count 146 109 66 44 77 147 86 25 699 1263 

Source: October 2008 Active Enrollment Report *NCA was closed in 2009-10 

STUDENT POPULATION INFORMATION 

Details of our student population are shown below. Chart 3 is the 

gender breakdown (variable from year to year in the high school 

program) and grade level count of our students as of this fall. Chart 4 

shows the ethnicity of our students (stable) and indicates we have 

only two significant ethnic subgroups, White and Hispanic. 

Chart 3: Gender by Grade Level 

Number of Students Enrolled by Gender, Fall 2009 

Enrollment = 2113 (Female 1085, Male 1028) 

Gender Count by Grade Level 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

KN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Female 68 59 59 70 71 71 76 91 90 97 110 125 98 

Male 68 74 76 62 76 82 69 78 76 108 90 75 94 

Source: Fall 2009 Enrollment Report *Fall 2008 gender data available page 111 



Chart 4: Enrollment by Ethnicity 

Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2008-09 

Shown as Number (and Percentage) of Students 

5% 

African-American (4%) (60) 

4% 2% 3% 1% 

13% 

Am. Indian/Alaskan Native (2%) (39) 

0% 

Asian (2%) (47) 

Filipino (1%) (26) 

72% 

Hispanic/Latino (13%) (261) 

Pacific Islander (0%) (6) 

White not Hispanic (72%) (1410) 

Total Enrollment: 1962 

Multiple/No Response (5%) (104) 

Source: JCS Student Information System (October 2008) 

SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION 

JCS had 185 (9.5 percent) special needs students enrolled in the 

2008-09 school year. These students were supported by eight fulltime 

and nine part-time teachers and aides. 

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY 

JCS has 20 students currently enrolled who have been identified as 

English Language Learners. Although still numerically insignificant, 

we have implemented an EL program for 2009-2010. 

STUDENT ATTENDANCE RATES 

Our average daily attendance rates for the past three years have 

been 96.38% (2006-07), 95.87% (2007-08), and 97.11% (2008-09). 

Because we run an independent study program, student attendance 

is calculated according to the time value of student work products, 

as personally judged by a certificated teacher. 




STUDENT SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION RATES 

Schoolwide, JCS utilizes a “Three Strikes and you are out” discipline 

system. “Strike Reports” document the failure to comply with the 

terms of the master agreement. Issuance of a third strike, within a 

twelve-month period, results in a notice of withdrawal to the family 

and a letter is placed in the student file stating that the student is 

not a good fit in an independent study program. Strikes are given 

for: 1) failure to attend scheduled meetings/events, 2) failure to 

complete 80 percent of assigned work, and 3) failure to comply with 

school rules/expectations. Table 3 shows the number of strikes for 

the 2008-09 school year by reason; however, there is much overlap 

between the failure to attend a scheduled meeting and the failure 

to complete 80 percent of the work assigned. The majority of forced 

withdrawals result from the failure to complete assigned work. 

Table 3: Strikes (Strike 1, 2, or 3) Given by Grade Span 

Strike 1, 2, or 3 

by Grade Span 

K-5 6-8 9-12 Total 

Failure to Attend 

Scheduled Meeting/Event 

17 6% 14 5% 98 32% 129 43% 

Failure to Complete 80 

Percent of Assignments 

9 3% 12 4% 120 40% 141 47% 

Failure to Maintain School 

Expectations 

1 0% 8 3% 23 8% 32 11% 

Source: JCS 2008-09 Student Information System 

Table 4: Strike Three Forced Withdrawals 

Strike Withdrawals K-5 6-8 9-12 Strike 3 

Strike 3 2 4% 4 9% 41 87% 47 

Source: JCS 2008-09 Student Information System 

MOBILITY 

The mobility rate is calculated by measuring the percentage of JCS 

students continuously enrolled from the CBEDS reporting date in 

October to STAR testing in the spring. The number continually enrolled 

has risen from 77 percent in 2005-06 to 83 percent in 2008-09. 

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS 

For 2008-09, 13.8 percent of the students were classed as socioeconomically 

disadvantaged (SED) using the criteria that neither of 

the student’s parents has received a high school diploma OR the 

student is eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program. 



STAFF 

JCS increased the number of certificated teachers over the past 

three years as shown in Table 5. However, because of the current 

budget issues at the state level this year, JCS has had to consolidate 

or eliminate some job positions, adjust full-time equivalency levels 

for other positions, and close an academy in 2009-2010. 

The majority of JCS teachers have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher 

(see Table 6). Of the teachers currently on staff, Table 7 shows the 

type of credential, the number of years of total teaching experience 

as well as the number of years employed by JCS. Our teaching staff 

fully meets the NCLB compliancy requirement for charter schools. 

Table 5: Number of Staff Members 

Year Certificated Classified Administrative 

2006-07 116 35 6 

2007-08 127 37 6 

2008-09 131 39 6 

Fall 2009 120 35 6 

Source: DataQuest/JCS SIS 

Table 6: Education Level of Certificated Staff 

Year Doctorate Master’s Master’s Bachelor’s Bachelor’s Total 

(+30) 

(+30) 

2006-07 1 12 39 24 40 116 

2007-08 1 8 43 68 7 127 

2008-09 1 6 53 43 27 131 


Table 7: Teacher Credential Status and Years in Teaching 

Credential/Years Teaching 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

Fully Credentialed 98 124 131 

Emergency Credentials 8 3 3 

Waivers 0 0 0 

Average Years Teaching 8.8 8.4 12.2 

Average Years in District 3.1 3.6 5.4 


* Teachers may hold one or more credentials 






STUDENT PERFORMANCE DATA 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX (API) 

JCS showed a 35-point growth in its API in 2008 (30 points above 

the growth target). Continual progress was reported in each of the 

last three year reporting periods (2007-2009) as shown in Table 9. 

Table 8: Schoolwide Academic Performance Index (API) 

API Score Statewide Similar Required API Score for 

Year 

(Growth) Rank Schools Rank Next Year (Actual Score) 

Met API Target? 

(+/- target) 

2006 717 7 9 726 No -9 

2007 730 7 10 730 Yes +0 

2008 764 8 10 734 Yes +30 

2009 770 TBD TBD 768 Yes +2 


Each of the school's “numerically significant” subgroups (Socioeconomically 

Disadvantaged (SED), White, and Hispanic/Latino) 

met its growth target in the last three years. As of 2008, Students 

with Disabilities are classed as a significant subgroup. 

Table 9: Academic Performance Index (API) Including Significant Subgroups 

API Growth Targets 

2007 2008 2009 

Base Growth Met? Base Growth Met? Base Growth Met? 

Schoolwide 725 730 Yes 729 764 Yes 763 770 Yes 

African-Am./Black * * * * * * 

Am. Indian/AK Native * * * * * * 

Asian * * * * * * 

Filipino * * * * * * 

Hispanic or Latino 667 690 Yes 689 705 Yes 703 710 Yes 

Pacific Islander * * * * * * 

White not Hispanic 737 742 Yes 741 777 Yes 776 783 Yes 

SED** 649 671 Yes 670 717 Yes 718 723 Yes 

English Learners * * * * * * 

Students w/Disabilities * * * 580 578 586 No 

* Not a numerically significant subgroup for the reporting period 

**SED: Students on the free/reduced price lunch program or those whose parents did not attend college 

***Significant Subgroups: 100 students w/valid test scores or 15% of the tested enrollment w/50 students 


STAR TEST RESULTS 

In evaluating the results of the STAR program, JCS has noted the 

following data trends: 

ENGLISH-L ANGUAGE ARTS 

• The number of students meeting the proficiency target in 

the elementary grades (K-6) increases with each grade level. 




• The proficiency rate for seventh and eighth graders fluctuates 

from year to year but is consistently greater than 50 percent. 

• In high school, the proficiency rate decreases with each grade 

level, however students at grades 9-11 are performing better 

than state counterpoints. 

• Academy students outperform non-academy students in all 

grade levels and subject areas. 

MATHEMATICS 

• JCS students start strong in math and generally show a decrease 

in the number of students meeting the proficiency 

target as they progress through the grade levels. During the 

last test cycle, ±55% of the students in grades 2-4 scored 

proficient or above while only ±41% of the students in 

grades 5-7 were rated the same. 

• Algebra and Geometry proficiency rates are ±15%. 

• On average, JCS students are performing similarly to 

students statewide in Algebra I and Geometry. 

• The number of students taking standards-aligned courses 

and the corresponding end-of-course math tests has increased 

significantly (no 06 math test, 137 students to 86 

students in 08 – see also Charts 12 and 13 on page 114). 

Table 10: Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Above on California Standards Tests 

2009 Proficient and Advanced Gr. 2 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8 Gr. 9 Gr. 10 Gr. 11 EOC 

English-language Arts 53% 50% 71% 75% 74% 72% 58% 60% 45% 37% - 

Math 56% 55% 56% 41% 42% 41% - - - - - 

General Math - - - - - - 40% 23% - - 35% 

Algebra I - - - - - - 21% 18% 11% 11% 16% 

Geometry - - - - - - - 35% 11% 5% 17% 

Algebra II - - - - - - - - 25% 6% 14% 

Source: http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2009 

Details of our STAR scores for the past two to three years are included 

in Appendix D pages 114 and 125-132 and in the evidence file. 

CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAM (CAHSEE) 

As displayed in Table 11, CAHSEE Census data show that substantially 

more tenth grade students pass the English-language arts 

portion of the exit exam than the mathematics section during the 

initial test administration. 

JCS’s passing rate for seniors on the exit exam (shown in Table 12) is 

consistently greater than 90 percent with a higher proportion of 



students passing English-language arts (±96 percent) than mathematics 

(±94 percent). General education students have between a 98 

and 99 percent pass rate (see page 116 for other sub-group results). 

Comparisons to statewide CAHSEE data, demographic summaries, 

and an analysis of the graduating classes of 2007-2009 are included 

in Appendix D. 

Table 11: CAHSEE Census (Grade 10) Summary 

Gr. 10 

Census 

ELA Number 

Passed 

ELA Percent 

Passed 

Math Number 

Passed 

Math Percent 

Passed 

2006-07 141 81% 124 73% 

2007-08 146 88% 140 84% 

2008-09 141 91% 124 78% 

Table 12: CAHSEE Graduating Class (Grade 12) Summary 

Graduating 

Class 

ELA Number 

Passed 

ELA Percent 

Passed 

Math Number 

Passed 

Math Percent 

Passed 

2006-07 149 96% 148 95% 

2007-08 156 96% 149 91% 

2008-09 151 97% 149 96% 

ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) 

Julian Charter School has met the annual schoolwide percent 

proficient targets for the last three years as shown in Table 13. 

Significant subgroups also met targets in mathematics and Englishlanguages 

arts (ELA) through 2008. Beginning in 2009, with the 

significant jump in the target percentage, the Socioeconomically 

Disadvantaged and Hispanic/Latino subgroups missed the target in 

mathematics in 2009 (see chart on page 122 for details). 

The AYP participation rate was met for all groups except Students 

with Disabilities and Socioeconomically Disadvantaged subgroup. 

For the first time, JCS did not meet the graduation rate. We 

attribute this to the current data collection and calculation 

methods in place and expect that alternative school data will be 

more accurate once CALPADS is fully in place. 

Table 13: AYP: Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Proficient 

Percent At or 

Above Proficient 

English-language Arts 

2007 Percent Proficient Target 22.3 


2009 Percent Proficient Target 46.0 

Math 



2009 Percent Proficient Target 47.5 

2006-07 55.1% 37.5% 

2007-08 59.2% 46.1% 

2008-09 66.6% 48.1% 

Source: http://api.cde.ca.gov 




PROCESS AND PERCEPTION DATA 

The overall trend in JCS surveys has consistently indicated that 

staff, parents and students are pleased with the education students 

are receiving at JCS and that students are being educated in a 

manner that meets expectations and allows for personalization and 

student success. (For additional details, see Appendix A, page 105.) 



CHAPTER II: 

STUDENT/COMMUNITY 

PROFILE SUMMARY 

Chapter 2: Student/Community Profile Summary 





PROFILE SUMMARY 

From the analysis of our student profile data, we noted that: 

• The school has seen a large increase in student enrollment 

and, as of October 2009, we have surpassed our strategic plan 

goal of 2,000 students. With a continual increase in student 

numbers and student movement in and out of the school, 

caution must be taken in the analysis of data to not attribute 

trends where they may not be supported by the data, but 

rather caused by the changes in the student population. 

NOTABLE AREAS 

• Grade-span enrollment has had two significant shifts that 

have impacted API scores: one in 2005-06 when our 9-12 

population substantially increased in comparison to our 

lower grades and one in 2008-2009 when our elementary 

grades grew by one hundred students. Another enrollment 

measure to note is that the number of students increases at 

each grade level from kindergarten through grade 12. 

• Overall, the size of the Academy programs in San Diego and 

Murrieta are restricted only by the size of the facilities and, 

additionally in Murrieta, constrained by the need to keep 

Riverside County enrollment at a lower level than San Diego 

County. 

• Our demographics (although similar to our authorizing 

district) do not mirror the ethnic make-up of the counties 

we serve, nor those statewide. Considering that we have a 

small English learner population, we would expect our 

English-language scores, while good, would be stronger. 

• Our special education population has increased. In addition 

to a larger overall number of students requiring services, we 

also have a broader range of disabilities to serve. 

• A review of math course grades and CAHSEE/STAR results 

reaffirmed the necessity for appropriate class placement in 

math and the need for a solid understanding of basic math 

concepts/applications before moving into algebra. 

• More strikes have been issued as of the 2007-08 school year 

(attributable to changes in the strike policy, increased administrative 

support of teachers issuing strikes, and better 

monitoring of interventions and support provided by the 

teacher). The data suggest more instruction about academic 

honesty and appropriate Internet usage is needed. 




AREAS OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPROVEMENT 

• The school’s API has been steadily rising with substantial 

growth (34 points) in the 2007-2008 cycle and seven points 

in 2008-2009; all significant subgroups, outside of the 

Students with Disabilities 2009 subgroup, consistently meet 

annual API growth targets. 

• STAR test participation has inched up every year. Including 

students with waivers, almost exclusively from either the 

home study or special education populations, we have 

reached a 96% testing participation rate. 

• Improved processes have been established for placing students 

in middle and high school math courses; improved 

processes are in place for matching students to the 

appropriate math and science end-of-course CST test. 

• An increased number of students are taking a standardsaligned 

math or science course and subsequently 

participating in the corresponding end-of-course CST. 

• More students are enrolled in and prepared for Algebra I in 

grades 8 and 9. 

• The CAHSEE grade 10 passing rate has been trending 

upward over the last four years: English-language arts 

increased from the high seventies to the low nineties, math 

increased from the high sixties to the mid-eighties. 

• The ninth grade writing course appears to be making a difference 

in students’ ability to tackle coursework in other 

high school classes. More data is needed to fully affirm. 

AREAS OF NEED 

• Monitor, analyze, and implement strategies to lessen movement 

of students into and out of the school during the 

course of the year (need greatest at grades 9-11) and at 

transitional points at the end of the year (e.g., grade eight). 

Enrollment patterns for students enrolling second semester 

in the high school home study program show students are 

struck out or withdraw at a high rate prior to the end of the 

school year. 

• Focus on improving basic math skills across the grade levels 

and with teachers/parent-teachers in K-8; seek ways to raise 

performance in Algebra I and Geometry (grades 11 and 12). 

• Increase data examination, data sharing, and using data to 

drive instructional and programmatic decision making. 



• Recognize need for common assessments across grade levels 

and disciplines, including students enrolled in academy 

classes. Establish published and uniform grading criteria for 

common assessments, final exams, and report cards for 

grade levels and grade spans. 

• Examine reasons for less than expected performance of all 

grades in science and history/social science and adjust 

programs to meet higher expectations. 

• Set and meet goals for our physical education program to 

prepare students to attain the skills and knowledge to be 

physically active as part of a healthy lifestyle; increase 

performance on the FITNESSGRAM®. (WIGS 2009-10) 

• Increase student opportunities to become more involved in 

assessing their own learning. 

• Increase modeling of, opportunities for, and monitoring of 

student goal setting, self-reflection and progress toward 

attainment of goals. 

• Seek ways to increase participation rate on SAT, ACT, PSAT, 

and AP exams; match alignment of mastery in the CSU 

Early Assessment Program (EAP) with higher-level English 

and math courses to increase the number of students 

meeting the criteria; increase participation in and teacher 

and student understanding of the EAP. 

• Examine why the number of students enrolled in college 

prep classes and completing all a-g requirements, although 

similar to comparable charter schools, is only a portion of 

the students (15 to 17 percent) that could handle the 

rigorous coursework. (The percentage of 2009 graduates 

who completed all the a-g requirements increased 50 

percent over the prior two years.) 

• Continue to analyze the correlation between semester 

grades and passing rates on the CAHSEE and the level of 

performance on CST tests. To date, certain clusters of 

students (generally by program or teacher) who have not 

passed the CAHSEE and/or were ranked at the Below Basic 

or Far Below Basic level in STAR testing have semester 

grades of either an A or a B. 

• Increase ability and usage of data collection systems so that 

three or more measures (demographics, perceptions, 

programs and processes, student learning and achievement) 

can be analyzed as a whole, e.g., are we achieving the 

purpose of our school, in all respects, for all students? 




KEY QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO STUDENT 

PERFORMANCE 

• Why do students show a marked difference in mathematics 

versus English-language arts achievement? 

• What can we do to maintain the same level of academic 

performance throughout the high school years that earlier 

grade levels exhibit? 

• Is the academic performance of our students as high as 

should be expected considering that we don’t have a large 

number of English-language learners? 

• Is there a different population that chooses an academy 

program over the home study program or are the majority 

of performance questions related to the instructional 

program delivered by the parent-teacher? Is the difference 

in scores between academy and home study students 

justified, expected, and acceptable? 

• What measures within the school reflect student learning? 

Course grades? Assessment results? Teacher subjective 

assessment? High stakes testing? 

• What has the impact of the mandatory ninth grade writing 

course had on student writing? On work in other classes? 

• Why are students enrolling in and then dropping out of 

college prep courses? 

• What instructional strategies are currently in place to 

ensure academic achievement for all students and student 

subgroups? What instructional strategies should be 

implemented to enhance academic achievement for 

underperforming students? What interventions for at-risk 

students are currently in place and what could be added? 

• How can we enhance measurement of ESLRs? 

• How can we effectively use data to identify goals for 

schoolwide action plans? 

• How can we broaden parent outreach and training? 

• How can we increase and expand the effectiveness of 

common assessments and other formative assessments? 

• How can we decrease failure and/or withdrawal due to 

failure rates? 

• What programs that have been put into place are currently 

effective? What programs need changes? 

• What professional development opportunities and needs 

are to be considered? 

• How can we build effective community relationships? 



CRITICAL AREAS OF NEED 

Expand expository writing strategies across the curriculum. 

• Correlated ESLRs under the umbrella of core subjects and 

21st century themes: 

• Learning and Innovation Skills 

• Information, Media and Technology Skills 

• Life and Career Skills 

Refine, design, implement and assess instructional and curricular 

strategies to enable all students to master Algebra I. 

• Correlated ESLRs under the umbrella of mathematics and 





Refine, design and implement comprehensive support strategies 

for all students. 

• Correlated ESLRs under the umbrella of core subjects and 










CHAPTER III: 

PROGRESS REPORT 

Chapter 3: Progress Report 





PROGRESS REPORT 

In the spring of 2004, JCS underwent its first WASC review. At that 

time, the eight critical areas for improvement noted by the visiting 

committee became part of the schoolwide action plan. The action 

plan developed in 2003 continued to be the blueprint for school 

improvement through our 2007 mid-term review. Thereafter, 

annually, as progress on critical areas for improvement was realized 

and/or circumstances changed such as the adoption of new ESLRs, 

the action plan was revised to reflect current needs and vision. 

Work was accomplished in strategic planning sessions, in departmental 

meetings, and under the direction of the advisory council. 

In most of the critical areas for improvement, annual updates 

included a slight refocusing of goals, strategies, and timelines with 

the objectives remaining quite consistent. However, the technology 

action plan underwent several major revisions, and is therefore 

handled differently in the ensuing progress report. 

TECHNOLOGY 

Action Plan #1 (2006-2009): Coordinate and implement a technology 

infrastructure that enhances student learning and ties 

various program elements into one cohesive package. 

Action Plan #7 (2006-2009): Increase the technology skills and 

learning environment of JCS students through increased availability 

of computers; technologically-prepared teachers; technology-enriched 

classes; computer software, hardware, and 

application classes; and graduation requirements. 

The school has made tremendous strides in the use of technology 

to enhance teaching and learning since the last self-study. Milestones 

from the mid-term review to present include: 

• Transitioned from DOS Student Information System (SIS) 

accessible only to the main office personnel to a web-based 

system available to all stakeholders 24/7 (SP SIS). 

• Created a lead technology teacher and a technology 

curriculum team lead to mentor teachers, build capacity, 

and model the integration of 21st century skills into systems 

of learning. 




• Established a technology committee to manage schoolwide 

technology policy, implementation, and budget, and formed 

a technology team for the integration of technology within 

the curriculum. 

• Added a learning management system, JCS Online, for high 

school home study core content classes. 

• Implemented TeacherEase, a web-based grade book and 

student management system for high school academies. 

• Purchased CompassLearning Odyssey, a web-based 

curriculum, for direct standards-based instruction for 

students in grades K-8 in reading, mathematics (through 

algebra), science, and social studies; added high school 

curriculum in 2009-10. 

• Adopted Discovery Education for curriculum integration 

and modalities of learning. 

• Began offering courses, labs, and tutoring via Elluminate 

(online conferencing/collaboration tool). (WIGS 2009-10) 

• Began to revise and/or write courses of study that incorporate 

all aspects of online learning (e.g., Digital Citizens Unite). 

• Upgraded teacher laptop computers. 

• Provisioned older computers for student use (e.g., MAP 

Mobile, computer labs). 

• Established June Tech Days and support modules for 

Teacher Technology Proficiency (TTP). 

• Held technology workshops (e.g., JCS Online, Discovery 

Education, CompassLearning Odyssey) during forum days. 

• Adopted 21st Century framework/ESLRs in lieu of 

technology literacy graduation requirement. 

• Implemented DataDirector for administrator- and teacherlevel 

access to warehousing and analysis of student data; 

allows for dynamic data reporting and graphical reports. 

• Transitioned from managed web site to parent and staff 

collaborative wikis. 

• Incorporated parent/student portals for management systems 

and parent mentor accounts for online learning programs. 

• Hosted opportunities for parent-teachers to learn more about 

technology. 

• Added an Exchange server for staff communication and 

collaboration tools, plus shared document archiving. 

• Expanded online presence/tools: Website, Twitter, 

Facebook, Google Docs, JCS Online, and TeacherEase. 

• Noticed an appreciation for and embracing of 21st century 

tools from a majority of staff members. 



Milestones from last self-study through the mid-term review: 

Action Plan #1 (2003-2006): Create/purchase a database system 

to organize/sort/manipulate student test scores. 

Action Plan #7 (2003-2006): Increase the technology skills of 

Julian Charter School students through increased availability of 

computers, computer classes, and graduation requirements. 

• Incorporated a technology literacy graduation requirement. 

• Implemented Teacher Technology Proficiency requirement. 

• Provided tech tutor office hours/staff meeting tech tips. 

• Updated job descriptions to include key technology components 

and responsibilities. 

• Added labs and technology classes at high school academies. 

• Used older laptops as part of a student laptop loaner program. 

• Increased number of customized ReportWriter courses. 

• Provided access to LearnKey courseware, CTAP modules, 

and community college technology classes. 

• Began using School Pathways Test Score Center (high stakes 

assessment tracking). 

• Designed and implemented Excel Big Picture spreadsheet 

(school-level assessment/achievement tracking). 

TECHNOLOGY ACTION PLAN EVIDENCE: 

• Teacher Technology Proficiency (TTP) records 

• Professional Improvement Plans (PIPs) 

• Technology Graduation Requirement/ESLRs, and ICT Maps 

• Program screenshots/guided program introductions 

• Sample data sheets, disaggregated student data, and reports 

• Agendas, minutes, handouts, and training schedules 

• Student work samples 

• Stakeholder interviews 

• Job descriptions 

• Technology-related policies 

• Certified technology plan 

ONGOING GROWTH NEED: 

• Continue seeking options to provide access to technology, 

training, and the integration of 21st Century Learning 

Skills/ESLRs into the curriculum for both parents and staff 

(correlates to Strategic Plan 2010-2014, #4). 




MATHEMATICS 

Action Plan #2 (2003-2009): Create a mathematics assessment 

and placement procedure for basic math (6th grade), Pre- 

Algebra, and Algebra 1 course titles to ensure mastery and 

readiness before moving on to the next level. 

The school has met the basic tenets of this action plan and broadened 

the concept to encompass a much fuller comprehensive plan. 

Milestones from the last self-study to present include: 

• In the early stages of work on this action plan, placement 

assessments for college prep (CP), non-college prep (non- 

CP), and basic courses were written and released to the 

educational facilitators; further implementation encompassed 

middle school through high school. 

• Specialists (core content area teachers) were hired, initially 

working with students in the college prep program and 

slowly expanding to include the non-college prep and basic 

home study students. (Academy students had highly 

qualified content area teachers from program inception.) 

• Courses of study and pacing guides were written for each 

level aligned with standards and a-g course descriptions. 

• Two additional a-g courses were approved: calculus and 

physics. 

• Additional curriculum was purchased to meet the needs of 

each level of students. 

• Final exams were implemented over a number of years and 

now include proctored exams for CP, non-CP, and basic. 

• High school math department chair now oversees the 

middle school students in CP Algebra I and the math curriculum 

team lead teaches NCP Algebra I online courses. 

• High school math department chair works with K-8 math 

team (i.e., assessments, placement, courses of study). 

Current structure/work: 

• Creating and implementing a full set of math intervention 

options that includes tutoring (small group, math lab, oneon-one, 

formative assessments, vendor course instruction 

(VCI), and Elluminate) and online options, or enrolling in 

the INSITE program or a math support class. (WIGS 09-10) 

• Staff collaboration via the Math PLC wiki, including both 

academy teachers and home study facilitators. 



• Building consistency, where practical, between academy 

and home study math courses. 

• Re-evaluating benchmarks, quick checks, and assessments 

as well as placement tests, course materials, and instruction 

(e.g., quality, quantity, rigor, alignment, requirements, 

mastery expectations, timing, re-teaching, and processes). 

• Evaluating CST scores and CAHSEE results with final exam 

and course grades; reviewing grading policies. 

• Increased reliance on department chair and K-8 math 

curriculum team lead for direction and articulation with K-5 

and middle school math programs. 

• Department chair serves both home study and academy programs; 

meets with supervisors of both programs regularly. 

• Seeking additional ways to strengthen the math skills of the 

parent-teachers in the home study program, including 

workshops and math nights. 

• Middle school students taking pre-algebra, algebra, or geometry 

are using the high school transcript codes (for tracking 

purposes) and most are overseen by a highly qualified mathematics 

teacher. Students encouraged (and soon required) to 

take a department-created and proctored semester final. 

• New Prentice Hall middle school math adoption; plethora of 

online (accessible) resources for parents and teachers. 

MATHEMATICS ACTION PLAN EVIDENCE: 


• Student achievement data 

• Agendas, minutes, guidelines, and handouts 

• Placement tests and other course materials 


• Math PLC interviews 

• Prentice Hall middle school math adoption (online resources) 

• Final exam policy 

ONGOING GROWTH NEEDS: 

• Refine quick checks and review all assessments to assure 100 

percent alignment with standards (focus on power standards). 

• Implement a comprehensive support/intervention program 

for students in math; provide additional supports for K-8 

parent-teachers to increase basic math skills and strategies 

for working with students in math. 




FINAL EXAM POLICY 

Action Plan #3 (2003-2009): Develop and implement a final 

examination policy for all high school students. 

The school has implemented a final examination policy for all 

high school students in core courses. Milestones from the last 

self-study include: 

• Adopted final exam board policy in the fall of 2004 with 

revisions added in 2008. 

• Initial CP final exams were given (spring 2005) for both 

home study and academy students in the four core courses. 

• Thereafter, both first and semester exams have been given. 

• Proctored final exams for non-CP and basic core coursework 

began in the winter of 2008 when the high school 

specialist program was in place for all levels of core subjects. 

• Proctored exams are offered over a period of four days, with 

students able to choose day, time, and location and how 

many tests they take during one sitting. 

FINAL EXAM ACTION PLAN EVIDENCE: 

• Final exam policy 

• Certificated handbook 

• Parent handbook 

• Educational leadership team, advisory council, and cabinet 

agendas and minutes 

• Copies of final exams 


• Develop consistency in regards to final exams in all high 

school core courses and across all programs. 

• Expand final exam policy to include elective and other noncore 

courses. 

• Apply principles (quality, rigor, etc.) learned through our 

assessment work (i.e., Stiggins) as final exams are reviewed 

and updated. 



WRITING 

Action Plan #4 (2003-2009): Develop a detailed plan to improve 

writing skills at the 6 th -12 th grade levels. 

As a school we have worked hard to find curriculum and methods of 

teaching writing that work well for home study students (kindergarten 

through grade 12) comparable to the instruction academy 

students receive from a certificated teacher at least twice a week. 

The sequence of work in the improvement of writing skills has 

included some trial and error and some good progress: 

• Initial program implementations included Step up to 

Writing and Criterion Online Writing Evaluation. 

• Provided K-8 student and parent training on the 4-Square 

Writing Method. 

• The Strategies for Writers curriculum, a structured textbook 

approach, was chosen to contrast with the Step up to Writing 

program for families needing additional lesson detail. 

• The subscription to Criterion Online Writing Evaluation was 

cancelled as the program was not useful in helping students 

evaluate or improve their writing. 

• English specialists began working with grades 9-12 as the 

specialist program was implemented. 

• A mandatory writing class (or its equivalent in the academy 

program) was implemented as a requirement for graduation. 

The class is open to eighth graders, but is mandatory 

for home study ninth graders who have not fulfilled the 

requirement or passed the challenge exam. Eleventh grade 

students new to the school are required to take the class 

unless they have taken and passed the English portion of 

the CAHSEE. Instruction is offered in a variety of ways, 

including an online class. 

• English and language arts PLCs are established; wikis used 

for teamwork, collaboration, and document sharing. 

• Elluminate writing classes are offered for middle schoolers. 

• More K-8 teachers are trained to use Excellence in Writing 

materials; writing seminars with author Andrew Pudewa. 

• Schoolwide writing samples (writing portfolios grade 9) are 

collected at specified grade levels and timelines and scoring 

methods calibrated (beginning stage). 

• Student work samples are analyzed to improve instruction 

and product production. 




• Writing across the curriculum is encouraged and seen more 

commonly as teachers develop curriculum units that tie 

directly to the ESLRs. 

• English team is creating rubrics that will be used department 

wide for evaluating specified writing products. 

• Teachers from all disciplines and educational facilitators 

are learning to create high quality rubrics (and 

train parent-teachers and students to do the same) to 

help students evaluate work quality. 

• High school students in the home study program write a 

beginning-of-the-year personal profile that is shared with the 

students’ teachers (specialists, facilitators, and other members 

of the students’ academic team from all disciplines) so that a 

good understanding of a student is gained even though there 

may not be face-to-face interactions with some members of 

the team (student and specialist, for instance). 

• Although the English department has had three different department 

chairs (currently co-chairs) throughout this time 

period, work is on track, but not complete. Staff and leadership 

have chosen to continue to focus on finding effective 

ways to increase the writing skills of our students and parents. 

WRITING ACTION PLAN EVIDENCE: 



• Writing curriculum, DVDs, and other resource materials 

• Writing prompts, rubrics, archived writing class session 

• Agendas, minutes, guidelines, and handouts 

• English PLC wiki and interviews with writing teachers 


• Increase the integration of 21st Century Learning Skills, using 

ICT Literacy Maps as a guide to writing across the curriculum. 

• Monitor the impact of the ninth grade writing class in the 

tenth grade English classes, eventually expanding analysis to 

all core classes. 

• Create model rubrics for the five genres taught in the writing 

class available to students, teachers (schoolwide) and parents; 

rubric packets include scored/annotated sample student work. 

• Provide training and calibration in evaluating writing. 



HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM STRUCTURE 

Action Plan #5 (2006-2009): Offer increased consistency, 

accountability, and support for the high school program by 

creating a new program structure. The new program will include 

training for the high school educational facilitator in the area of 

academic planning, college and career counseling, and the 

direct supervision of non-core classes. Additionally, core subject 

specialists, under the direction of the department chair, will 

direct the course of study through an approved course sequence, 

ongoing support, assessment of work, and final examinations. 

Action Plan #5 (2003-2006): Increase consistency and accountability 

for the high school program by creating a comprehensive 

packet that provides guidance to the educational facilitator and 

family in the areas of curriculum and California State Content 

Standards. 

Since the last full self-study the school has dramatically altered the 

high school program in six primary ways: 1) split the educational 

facilitator (EF) cadre and designated an EF as either K-8 or high 

school, 2) implemented the specialist program (specialists write and 

manage courses of study, evaluate student work, and maintain 

course webpage), 3) added JCS Online, a learning management 

system to complement the specialist program, 4) added INSITE 

(supported independent study) classes in Murrieta and San Diego, 

5) added or streamlined pathways (specialist-designed course of 

study, portfolio option, independent study, and foundational 

courses), and 6) implemented a site-based academy program. These 

program changes allow more specialized training for high school 

facilitators, allow time for collaboration between facilitators and 

specialists, and provide additional support structures and options for 

students. 

In addition to the above changes, the overall structure of the school 

evolved from having an assistant director for each region (San 

Diego/Orange, Riverside/Desert, and Murrieta) to having assistant 

directors lead the various programs: K-8, high school, site-based, 

and special education under the supervision of a new position, the 

director of education. Under this revised organizational structure, 

assistant directors (K-8, high school, and academy) began administering 

the Safety Net program for their students. Again, this 




organizational structure allows staff members to focus and train 

within their area of specialty. 

As of 2009-2010, we have adjusted the duties of the academic 

counselor and added an additional person to the team—one 

academic counselor now serves the home study population and 

one the academy students. 

HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM STRUCTURE ACTION 

PLAN EVIDENCE: 



• Department agendas and minutes 

• Staff and PLC wikis 

• JCS Online 

• Counselor webpage, counselor packets 


• Certificated and parent handbooks 


• Build a cohesive high school program across all high school 

program options. 

• Begin to bring the same focus and attention to non-core 

courses and electives as the work previously completed in 

core course areas. 

• Expand high school program to include more career 

technical pathways (WIGS 2008-2009). 

• Seek ways to provide additional support structures for 

students not achieving success. 

• Continue to analyze data to drive instructional and 

programmatic department-wide decisions. 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Action Plan #6 (2003-2009): Create a plan that will increase the 

variety and frequency of parent and staff professional development 

opportunities. 

The school has recognized the need for sustained and impactful 

professional development and has sought creative ways to provide 

meaningful training for teachers and parents spread over a wide 

geographic area. Our efforts at co-training parents and teachers have 

been largely unsuccessful and so we have moved the focus to having 

the best professional development program we can for our staff and 

then having the staff (or parents) mentor parent-teachers one-onone 

(beginning stage) and through other avenues such as co-op 

meetings, support groups, expos, and online discussion groups. 

Milestones from the last self-study include: 

• Teachers at Julian Charter School set goals and track professional 

growth through a Professional Improvement Plan. 

• Staff meetings have evolved from compliance and “how to” 

sessions to Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). 

• Highly qualified single-subject department chairs or 

curriculum team leads oversee and facilitate respective PLCs, 

while the assistant directors lead program PLCs. 

• More organized opportunities have been provided for parentteachers 

to gain expertise in areas of concern, including the 

last session of each forum designed as a parent/staff session. 

PD ACTION PLAN EVIDENCE: 

• Professional Improvement Plans/Tech Portfolios (PIPs/TTPs) 

• BTSA/Formative Assessment for California Teachers (FACT) 

• PLC and forum agendas and minutes; parent/staff/PLC wikis 


• Beginning work in teaming parent mentors/parent mentees 

• Event and professional development calendars (e.g., curriculum 

workshops, Q meetings, support group schedules) 


• Professional development needs are ongoing and include 

training for both staff and parent-teachers (PLCs, parentteacher 

coaching/peer mentoring, and support groups). 




DROP OUT AND TRANSITIONAL RATES 

Action Plan #8 (2003-2006): Continue to analyze the drop out and 

transitional rates of students to and from other educational choices. 

The mobility rate of students moving into and out of Julian Charter 

School program is monitored with weekly enrollment/withdrawal 

reports. Staff and administration continue to work on developing a 

school culture where families understand the importance of a 

stable school environment and do not move unnecessarily between 

schools of choice (private/charter) and the traditional public 

schools. At present, approximately 50 percent of our late-in-theyear 

enrollees do not continue with Julian Charter the following 

year. This implies some measure of families who choose JCS as a 

temporary stopgap measure, rather than a true education option. 

TRANSITIONAL RATES ACTION PLAN EVIDENCE: 

• Weekly enrollment/withdrawal reports 

• Admissions script/questionnaire 

• STAR mobility rate data/multi-year mobility rate reports 

• Orientation meeting calendar 

• Placement records 

• Schoolwide goals 


• Continued attention to patterns of enrollment/withdrawals, 

monitoring of student movement into and out of the school, 

reasons for enrollments/withdrawals, and tracking strike 

reports to provide ongoing data for program improvement. 

• Implement revisions/enhancements to SIS to allow more 

thorough tracking of and easier access to transitional data. 

• Look at other support strategies and review student 

counseling practices to ensure that students are provided 

every opportunity to complete their education and have 

access to programs that meet their immediate needs such as 

GED preparation. 

• Provide more detailed information to prospective families at 

orientations to help them better understand what home 

study entails. 



CHAPTER IV: 

SELF-STUDY FINDINGS 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings 


Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings 


SELF-STUDY FINDINGS 

ORGANIZATION/VISION AND PURPOSE 

A1. To what extent a) does the school have a clearly 

stated vision or purpose based on its student needs, 

current educational research and the belief that all 

students can achieve high levels and b) is the school’s 

purpose supported by the governing board and the 

central administration and further defined by expected 

schoolwide learning results and the academic standards? 

Julian Charter School’s mission is to provide an exemplary 

personalized learning program in a supportive, resource-rich 

learning environment. We are dedicated to excellence and 

committed to nurturing passionate lifelong learners. 

SUMMARY 

• Julian Charter School, a professional learning community, 

challenges and inspires students to discover their passions, 

pursue their goals, and master multi-dimensional abilities 

through a personalized student learning program. 

• Stakeholder groups make decisions and provide guidance 

and leadership to meet the evolving needs of students and 

families within all the educational programs. 

• Standards-based learning and ESLR-driven achievement are 

at the core of the JCS learning culture and are based on 

current research and a holistic view of teaching/learning. 

• The school’s strategic plan is revised every three to five 

years. Extensive stakeholder interviews, focus groups, 

surveys, open meetings, or a combination of outreach 

methods are conducted over a six-month period before a 

new version of the plan is released. Each strategic plan has a 

somewhat different focus, depending on other school plans 

and needs, but includes such things as: revisiting mission 

and vision, analyzing (and recommending changes to) the 

organizational structure based on program needs, or 

providing overall direction for the impetus of the school 

(WIGS 2009-2010, page 108; Strategic Plan Summary 2010- 

2014, page 110). 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization/Vision and Purpose 


Findings 

Evidence 

VISION AND PURPOSE 

• Mission, Vision, and Core Values based on staff, 

parent, student and governing entities feedback. 

• ESLRs clearly stated and visible throughout school. 

• 21st Century Skills Framework adopted as ESLRs 

through a collaborative process in 2008-2009. 

• Schoolwide annual goals, strategic plans, and ESLRs 

reflect vision and purpose of school and articulate 

student outcomes and support systems. 

• State standards are an integral part of the design and 

implementation of school’s mission and ESLRs and are 

the foundation for all 21st century skill development. 

• Departments, curriculum teams, and facilitators 

routinely consult and reference the vision/mission, 

state standards, frameworks and ESLRs in the development 

of courses of study and curriculum selections. 

• The advisory council requires that proposals be based 

on schoolwide goals and ESLRs before mini-grant funds 

are allocated. 

• Counseling packets and academic profile created in 

conjunction with high school expectations. 

• The school’s strategic plan, developed under the leadership 

of Alliant University’s Organizational Consulting 

Center, is based on collaboration with and input by 

stakeholders and is guided by the school’s mission. 

• JCS is in the final stages of incorporating a school 

foundation. The mission of the foundation is to 

partner with students, parents and staff to facilitate 

community involvement and provide financial support 

for JCS educational programs and priorities. 

• Posters (website, sites) 

• Handbooks 

• Agendas, meeting notes 

• Draft work products 

• Strategic plan(s) 

• Annual schoolwide goals 

• www.21stcenturyskills.org 

• Process/perception data 

• Curriculum on Report- 

Writer and JCS Online 

• Learning management 

system provides course 

content and other courserelated 

information 

• Parent wikis provide K-8 

curriculum extensions 

• Friendly Standards (K-8) 

• Mini-grant applications 

• Counseling packets 

• Academic profile 

• Incorporation documents 

• Planning documents: 



(board goals) 

• WASC action plan 

• Technology plan 

• ESLRs/21st century 

framework 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization/Vision and Purpose 


ORGANIZATION/GOVERNANCE 

A2. To what extent does the governing board a) have 

policies and by-laws that are aligned with the school’s 

purpose and support the achievement of the expected 

schoolwide learning results and academic standards 

based on data-driven instructional decisions for the 

school; b) delegate implementation of these policies to 

the professional staff; and c) regularly monitor results 

and approve the schoolwide action plan and its relationship 

to the Local Educational Agency (LEA) plan? 

SUMMARY 

• Strategic plan/schoolwide goals based on a variety of data. 

• Policies, based on need and laws, are generated by the appropriate 

department with input from stakeholders and reviewed 

by cabinet, advisory council, and approved by the board. 

• Through a wide variety of channels (department chairs, 

curriculum team leads, PLCs, forums, e-mail) the staff is 

informed of changes, offerings and updates within the school. 

• Stakeholders participate in regular meetings to support 

student achievement of academic standards and ESLRs. 

• Personalized learning, through a variety of methods, is 

provided to support students in achieving expected 

schoolwide learning results and academic standards. 

• Student results are monitored continuously and curriculum 

changes are implemented based on data. 

Findings 

POLICIES AND BY-LAWS 

• The governing board meets quarterly to review school 

operations and policies as well as to guide overall 

school planning. All board operations, from board 

make-up and authority to internal affairs, are based 

on internal guidelines, regulations, and policies. 

• Advisory Council meets every other month and provides 

stakeholder input, review of policies and uses 

schoolwide goals, academic standards and ESLRs as 

the basis for dispensing discretionary funds. 

• Cabinet meets monthly to guide ongoing operations, 

discuss relevant issues, and review plans and policies. 

• Educational Leadership Team (ELT) meets monthly to 

review policies, teaching practices, and student needs. 

Evidence 

• Meeting notices, agendas, 

and minutes 

• Policy binder 

• Five-year policy review 

cycle 

• JCS website 

• Governing bodies are 

primarily made up of 

parents 

• ELT wiki 

• WIGS 2009-10 

• WIGS 2008-09 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization/Governance 


SUPPORT A CHIEVEMENT OF STANDARDS/ESLRS 

• All governing bodies, leadership teams, and stakeholders 

provide input and direction on ESLR outcomes. 

• Department chairs/curriculum team leads meet with 

assistant directors monthly to plan/review PLC work 

and determine needed professional development. 

• PLCs meet monthly to review data, analyze student 

work, develop common assessments and focus on 

continuous improvement. 

• Leadership and teaching staff participate in ongoing 

reviews of teaching and facilitating practices to ensure 

academics are relevant and rigorous. 

• The executive director communicates weekly to the 

staff via email in the form of a weekly update and 

communicates regularly with the board. 

POLICY I MPLEMENTATION DELEGATED TO PROFESSIONAL STAFF 

• The school’s organizational chart outlines areas of 

responsibility and categories of direct reports. 

• Each program director/assistant director is tasked 

with running one aspect of the educational program: 

K-8 home study, high school home study, K-8 

academies, 6-12 academies, and special education. 

• Each site coordinator is tasked with communicating 

and engaging parents and other stakeholders in the 

vision and mission of the school as well as generating 

and sustaining a school culture conducive to student 

learning and staff professional growth. 

• Important decisions and responsibilities are delegated 

to committees made up of all interested stakeholders. 

MONITOR RESULTS 

• Staff monitors and assesses student progress; leadership 

teams report progress to the board and advisory 

council; governance bodies or designated stakeholder 

teams incorporate data into school planning decisions; 

as possible, decisions are made collaboratively. 

• All stakeholders support high quality learning experiences 

with every student achieving the standards. 

• An SPSA is developed, however, since the school is not 

required to have one, it has not been through the 

formal stages; our LEA Plan will be updated upon 

reauthorization of NCLB or its equivalent. 

• As an independent charter, JCS is exempt from most 

provisions of the CA Education Code and does not 

receive Title I funds or free/reduced lunch allocations. 

• Meeting notes 

• PLC wikis 

• Office Update e-mails 

• WASC preface, certificated 

handbook, public folders 

• Education leadership team 

and coordinator interviews 

• Site and program visits 

• Small school learning 

communities (SLCs) 

• PLC, forum and leadership 

teams agendas 

• Strategic plan, budget, and 

tech meeting agendas and 

minutes 

• Schoolwide and student 

data reports 

• Planning documents 

• PLC, forum, and leadership 

teams agendas 

Planning documents: 



(board goals) 

• WASC action plan 

• Technology plan 

• ESLRs/21st century 

framework 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization/Governance 


ORGANIZATION/LEADERSHIP AND STAFF 

A3. a) To what extent based on student achievement 

data, does the school leadership and staff make 

decisions and initiate activities that focus on all 

students achieving the expected schoolwide learning 

results and academic standards? b) To what extent does 

the school leadership and staff annually monitor and 

refine the schoolwide action plan based on analysis of 

data to ensure alignment with student needs? 

SUMMARY 

• The actions of cabinet and the educational leadership team 

(ELT) are directly linked to students’ achievement of the 

academic standards and the ESLRs. 

• Cabinet, the educational leadership team, and the advisory 

council provide input for, review, and monitor implementation 

of the action plan and the strategic plan. 

• The educational leadership team reviews data on an ongoing 

basis, plans for and ensures the implementation of 

the action plan and provides input on the relevant EdWing 

elements of the strategic plan. 

• Leadership (from executive director to department chairs) 

works to place teaching staff in areas of strength and 

interest. 

• Leadership uses processes/procedures for involving staff in 

shared responsibilities/actions to support student learning: 

• Department chairs/curriculum teams develop goals 

annually and communicate regularly to assess 

student progress; PLCs are structured as collaborative 

tools and use a variety of data as basis for 

measuring/shaping progress on the ESLRs. 

Findings 

Evidence 

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND STAFF FOCUS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 

• With the adoption of PLCs, the school’s academic 

program planning is broad-based and collaborative 

and includes overlapping and diverse wings of the 

educational program: academies and learning centers, 

K-8, high school, Safety Net, SPED, resource center, 

accountability/testing, and technology. 

• PLC agendas and minutes 

• Survey results 

• Leadership retreats 

(schoolwide planning) -- 

agendas and notes 

• Organizational chart 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization/Leadership and Staff 


• The school has shifted noticeably within the last few 

years from business as usual to becoming a school 

where data analysis drives curriculum, instruction, 

daily practice and short- and long-term planning. 

• The school’s focus on continuous improvement uses a 

data pyramid with some data used on a daily basis, 

some monthly or quarterly, and some annually. 

• Departments use assessment data to focus attention 

and resources on curriculum development. 

• Schoolwide data samples 

and DataDirector reports 

• PLCs/forum agendas 

• Department/curriculum 

team agendas and notes 

• Stakeholder surveys 


• CAHSEE intervention forms 

• Four-year plans 

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND STAFF ANNUALLY MONITOR/REFINE ACTION PLAN 

• Leadership teams (cabinet, ELT, DCs, CTs) confer 

regularly (monthly at a minimum) to review progress 

on goals, assess needs, and design ongoing plans. 

Interim work takes place through ad hoc meetings, 

phone calls or through e-mail. 

• Governing bodies (board, advisory council) review 

plans and proposals, as well as progress on goals at 

regularly scheduled meetings; additional contact is 

generally through e-mail and/or conference calls. 

• ELT reviews progress on action plan goals at every 

meeting—a standing agenda item. 

• Assistant directors meet with curriculum teams and 

departments during forums and are in communication 

formally once a month with frequent informal 

communication. 

• Agenda and minutes 

• E-mails to staff 

• Curriculum team wiki 

• Department notes 

• PLC notes and minutes 

• AD anecdotal records 




A4. To what extent does a qualified staff facilitate 

achievement of the academic standards and the 

expected schoolwide learning results through a system 

of preparation, induction, and ongoing professional 

development? 

SUMMARY 

• BTSA program supports all new teachers and counselors. 

• One hundred percent of core class staffing meets NCLB 

“Highly Qualified” criteria. 

• Staff forums (professional development) held bi-monthly. 

• PLCs meet monthly. 

Findings 

Evidence 

PREPARATION, I NDUCTION, AND ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

• Each year, a common theme is identified to guide 

collaboration and ensure that staff remains focused 

on student improvement. The overarching theme, 

“Orchestrating Excellence and Harmony,” is part of 

our focus on data analysis and decision making. 

• Program assistant directors focus in-depth each year 

on a specific area: site-based, classroom assessment; 

K-8, parent-teacher professional development; high 

school, common assessments; K-8 academies, childcentered 

learning. 

• Meetings, events, and other forums provide opportunities 

for clarification and input as well as time to 

discuss curriculum (current and potential). 

• All qualified teachers take part in the BTSA program; 

five (08-09) and seven (09-10) teachers are in BTSA. 

• New teachers are assigned a mentor teacher at 

academies/learning centers; assistant directors direct 

mentoring of new staff in the home study program. 

• Professional development is customized to meet staff, 

department and individual needs (much one-on-one 

mentoring by ADs, peers, and other teacher leaders). 

• The staff includes numerous teachers who have home 

schooled or are currently home schooling their own 

children; these staff members provide an element of 

authenticity and expertise for parent-teachers and 

provide guidance for peers. 

• PLC/forum agendas and 

minutes 

• June PLC presentations 

• Data training agendas 

• Classroom assessment 

book study group agendas 

• DC/CT agendas/minutes 

• Change from monthly staff 

meetings to PLCs 

• PD focus areas 

• BTSA participant binders 

• BTSA lead interview 

• BTSA participating teacher 

interviews 

• New teacher training 

schedule 

• Mentor/mentee interviews 

• Parent feedback loops 



• Monthly staff, student, and parent collaboration 

drives standards-based courses and sets the stage for 

differentiation to meet student needs and interests. 

• Forum days offer a joint staff/parent-teacher session. 

• JCS contracts with Alliant International University’s 

Organizational Consulting Center for supervisory 

coaching. The majority of supervisors have participated 

in the coaching process since 2005-06. 

• The special education department receives legislative 

updates and operational bulletins from the local 

SELPA, the authorizing school district, and the 

accountability coordinator, in addition to workshops. 

• Academic counselors subscribe to related listservs, 

visit other schools/districts, participate in ongoing 

professional development and attend conferences to 

keep knowledgeable in their field. 

• Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is aligned with 

the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. 

• Required Teacher Technology Proficiency (TTP) 

portfolio and attendance, as merited, at Tech Days. 

• 100% of core academic subjects are taught by NCLB 

compliant teachers. 

• ESLRs posted; standards in SP; frameworks in RC. 

• Conference/professional development opportunities 

outside of school include: CUE, APLUS+, California 

Charter School Association, speaker series, and 

opportunities of choice. 

• Schoolwide goals incorporate hiring and training of 

teachers and facilitators (see WIGS, page 109): 

• Improve Selection Process of Educational Facilitators: 

Selection and matching of teachers’ skills 

with the appropriate subject and grade level in 

addition to fulfilling faculty “talent” needs is not 

only integral for student learning, but also for 

compliance with various laws and regulations. 

• Emphasize Training and Development (Educational 

Facilitators, Parents and Staff): This objective seeks 

to enhance the process by which educational 

facilitators and staff members are oriented toward 

and become proficient in their roles and with 

providing training opportunities for further 

development. In addition, this objective seeks to 

help parents improve their teaching abilities in an 

effort to enhance the student learning 

environment. 

• Monthly family meetings 

• Parent support groups and 

other parent PD activities 

(Curriculum Expo/Q Mtgs.) 

• Administrative coaching 

logs, schedules, interviews 

• 360 feedback process 

• SPED department e-mail 

and calendar of events 

• Counseling calendars, e- 

mails, and binders 

• PIP documentation 

• Observation schedule 

• TTP documentation 

• 47%, advanced degrees 

• 98%, Clear Professional 

Credentials 

• Access to key documents 

• Agendas and notes from 

conferences 

• Staff interviews 

• PIPs 

• Schoolwide goals 2008-09 

• Cabinet, advisory council 

and educational leadership 

team agendas and minutes 



• • 


A5. To what extent are leadership and staff involved in 

ongoing research or data-based correlated professional 

development that is focused on identified student 

learning needs? 

SUMMARY 

• Staff inservice days at the beginning and end of the year are 

used for reviewing data and implementing changes (e.g., 

INSITE program, DataDirector implementation, foundational 

courses) based on identified needs. 

• Assistant directors, departments, and curriculum teams 

review and analyze data to determine student learning 

needs and project professional development needs. 

Findings 

• Over 75% of professional development focuses on 

improving educator capacity to teach core academic 

content for understanding, in ways that enhance 21st 

century skills mastery (e.g., training opportunities 

support educators in developing assessments for 

classroom use, supporting teacher leaders in 21st 

century skills integration, developing capstone 

projects and/or integrating inquiry-based strategies 

into practice); educators have access to and use 

capacity-building learning communities (PLCs) and 

instructional tools that enhance mastery of ESLRs. 

• Development is supported with time and personnel. 

• Time reserved for all school professional development, 

general and specialized tech training and 

professional learning community work. 

• Individual meetings held semi-annually with staff 

members to set/review professional development 

goals and progress. 

• Retreats and Spotlight on Education speaker series 

provide professional development for leadership. 

• Professional development supported with materials 

and resources: laptops, networking tools (e.g., wikis, 

Exchange), data tools (SP, DataDirector), shared 

professional development library, online training (e.g., 

LearnKey, DEN), books(s) given to staff that complement 

annual theme(s), trainers (CLO, DataDirector). 

Evidence 

• PLC/forum agendas/notes 

• K-8 AC Weekly PD logs 

• Department and 

curriculum team agendas 

and minutes 

• Best practices, data 

findings, and PLC 

presentations 

• Staff/leadership interviews 

• Data/data tools 

• Online collaborative tools 

• Leadership, PLCs, DCs/CTs 

agendas and minutes 

• Professional Improvement 

Process/PIP documents 

• BTSA binders 

• PD purchase orders 

• Speaker series attendance 

• June tech days/TTPs 

• Conference share-outs 

• PD materials/resources 

• PLC monthly summaries 

• Staff wikis 

• Public folders 

• Subscriptions 



ORGANIZATION/RESOURCES 

A6. To what extent are the human, material, physical, 

and financial resources sufficient and utilized effectively 

and appropriately in accordance with the legal intent of 

the program(s) to support students in accomplishing the 

academic standards and the expected schoolwide 

learning results? 

SUMMARY 

• Feedback from all self-study groups, parent surveys and 

student and parent interviews validate that JCS does well in 

providing and using the human, physical and financial 

resources needed to accomplish its mission. 

Findings 

Evidence 

RESOURCES S UFFICIENT AND UTILIZED EFFECTIVELY 

• The chief business officer, director of human resources, 

and the executive director (with support from 

others on cabinet, ELT, main office, and staff) handle 

budget, personnel, payroll, and purchasing. 

• Personnel, leases, renovation needs, maintenance, 

technology infrastructure and tools, as well as salary 

schedules and other budget-sensitive needs (budget 

or operational) are reviewed at each board meeting. 

• Department chairs, curriculum team leads, and other 

committees provide input about allocation of funds. 

• The service learning program (grant funded) embeds 

service learning projects into the academic program. 

• The JCS Foundation was established to provide additional 

funding for student programs, supplies, and 

other resources deemed important by stakeholders. 

• A variety of recommended curriculum is stocked and 

checked out to families per individual learning plan, 

with an option to purchase additional non-stocked 

educational materials resources (EMRs) as needed. 

• Home study families may use educational units (VCIs) 

to acquire lessons, tutoring, or to meet other needs. 

• Multiple ways for students to maintain a well-rounded 

educational program are offered such as Kroc passes 

(sports, education, activities) to music lessons. 

• Resource Center well stocked with textbooks, TEs, kits, 

manipulatives, and other resource materials. 

• Governing board minutes 


• JCS budget/audits 

• Department budgets 

• Open budget meetings 

• New Hire Activation form 

• Salary schedules 

• Technology, facilities, and 

operational plans 

• DC/CT minutes and e-mails 

• Service learning grant 

• JCS Foundation Articles of 

Incorporation 

• Gifts, donations, and grant 

documentation 

• Curriculum order forms 

• Shipping cost analyses 

• Follett online ordering and 

other purchase orders 

• Student accounts (EUs) 

• Intramural athletics 

• Vendor courses 

• Murrieta Resource Center 

• Shipping records 

• Annual inventory 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization/Resources 


• Key academic staff includes: teachers, academic 

counselors, special education providers, administration, 

and support personnel, including technology. 

• Teachers are very involved in activities outside the 

classroom to support student success. 

• The special education department assists students and 

staff with sufficient and effective resources to support 

students in meeting the academic standards/ESLRs. 

• Staffing redistributed, as needed, to better meet the 

needs of students, within budget allocations. 

• Teachers, counselors, students, parents, and staff 

have access to online portals for grades and resources. 

• All teachers are regularly observed by administration 

and other support providers. 

• Vendors renew applications annually. 

• School Accountability 

Report Card (SARC) 

• Tutoring/assessment 

• Field trips/special events 

• Learning center classes 

• Audio or large print books 

• Other student aids/aides 

• Specialized staff 

• Contract personnel 

• Student-teacher ratio 

• JCS Online/TeacherEase 

• Administrative records 

• VCI applications 



ORGANIZATION/RESOURCES (CHARTER SCHOOLS) 

A7. To what extent has the charter school’s governing 

authority and the school leadership executed responsible 

resource planning for the future? Is the charter 

school fiscally solvent and does it use sound and ethical 

accounting practices (budgeting/monitoring, internal 

controls, audits, fiscal health and reporting)? 

A8. To what extent has the charter school developed 

policies, procedures, and internal controls for managing 

the financial operations that meet state laws, generally 

accepted practices, and ethical standards? 

Findings 

SUMMARY 

• JCS exercises responsible resource planning and conducts 

financial operations through established/sound procedures, 

including all reporting requirements. The school is solvent. 

Evidence 

RESPONSIBLE R ESOURCE PLANNING/FISCAL SOLVENCY/SOUND PRACTICES 

• Julian Charter School is a direct-funded charter school. 

• The business office, headed by a “shared” authorizing 

district/charter school Chief Business Officer (CBO), 

works closely with the district and COE. 

• JCS handles budgeting, payroll, purchasing, accounting, 

contracts, and personnel processes internally 

through financial systems administered by SDCOE. 

• Long-term debt schedules, multi-year contracts, and 

capital projects are tracked and monitored on a 

regular basis within the budget and budgeting process. 

• Annual reviews of significant operating costs are 

shared with all of those who make budget decisions, 

including governing bodies and the executive director. 

• Annual reviews of significant operating costs are 

shared with stakeholders at an open meeting. 

• JCS has a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) established with its chartering district 

detailing the specific operational relationship and 

responsibilities and special education/facility fees. 

• The current JUSD-authorized charter was renewed in 

the spring of 2006 and is in force through 2011. 

• CBO interview 

• Direct-funded charter 

school classification 


• Personnel interviews 

• Financial systems 

• Contracts/leases 

• Open budget meeting 

handouts 

• Weekly office updates 

include enrollment 

projections and budget 

updates 

• Memorandum of 

Understanding 

• Charter 

• Charter renewal 

documentation 



• JCS conducts its financial operations through 

established procedures required of charter schools, 

including all budget reporting requirements and a 

standardized accounting code system (SACS). 

• The school undergoes an annual financial audit 

conducted in accordance with “generally accepted 

accounting principles” and any other state-mandated 

requirements for charter schools. Audits have revealed 

no exceptions or deficiencies in the past four years. 

• The school seeks to maintain a fiscal reserve in line 

with that recommended in state guidelines. The uncertainty 

of state funding, lowered funding rates, and 

altered payment dates are all stresses on our systems, 

but are being managed appropriately. 

• In order to sustain a shared responsibility for fiscal 

matters, the responsibility for some aspects of the 

school’s budget was given to individual departments: 

K-8, 9-12, site-based programs (K-8/9-12), special 

education, and accountability in 2007-08. 

• Each student in the home study program is allotted a 

budget of educational units (EUs) based on grade span 

to purchase materials, courses, or curriculum that fall 

within school guidelines. 

• General school funding is primarily from two sources: 

general purpose entitlements and categorical block 

grants. Funding is provided from a combination of 

state/local sources in an amount per unit of average 

daily attendance in specified grade level spans. 

• Independent charter school funding is based on a nonclassroom-based 

instruction and funding determination. 

To date, SBE has set JCS funding at 100 percent. 

• The school seeks to maximize program services and 

receive allocations for initiatives (e.g., CAHSEE intervention, 

counseling services, and eRate funding). 

• The school’s service learning program is supported, in 

part, through federal funding from Learn and Serve 

America. This is a six-year program, with a year-toyear 

continuing grant application, that totals approximately 

$180,000 spread over six years. 

• Private donations to either academy programs or 

schoolwide are about $25,000 a year. 

• The school has taken steps to increase funding outside 

of state and local sources in numerous ways such as 

the establishment of a school foundation, stepped up 

fund raising, and increased attention on grant writing 

and other revenue building or marketing campaigns. 

• Annual budget 

• Interim budget reports 

• Annual audit/audit findings 

• Accounting books 

• WIGS 2009-2010 

• Reserve documentation 

• Sample student envelope 

(part of audit) 

• Department budgets 

• Purchase orders 

• Cash flow logs 

• Monthly statements 

• Follett (EU) records 

• Other department or sitebased 

fiscal records 

• Fiscal forms used by staff 

• Attendance accounting 

• Admissions log 

• Non-classroom based 

SB740 stipulations: ≤20 

percent can be spent on 

non-instructional items 

• CAHSEE intervention 

funding notices 

• Middle and high school 

supplemental school 

counseling program 

• Service learning grant 

• Donation records 

• eRate funding records 

• Articles of Incorporation 

501 (c)(3) document 

• Fundraising flyers 

• WIGS 2008-2009 



• The school has taken a more active approach to 

advertising and marketing over the past three years. In 

addition to updated brochures, signs, and website, the 

school is participating in more community functions 

such as festivals, literacy fairs, and Earth Day. 

POLICIES, P ROCEDURES, AND INTERNAL C ONTROLS 

• Comprehensive budget assumptions are prepared 

during the budget process -- governing body adopts a 

budget at least 30 days prior to the new fiscal year. 

• The working budget is monitored against actuals at 

least monthly, including a review of ADA assumptions. 

• All accounts payable obligations and debt services are 

up-to-date, appropriately described, and disclosed in 

financial statements. 

• Fiscal services roles include: attendance recording, 

payroll, and management of 1) student accounts, 

2) resources, 3) contracts and 4) facilities. 

• Personnel working in the Business Services Department 

include the chief business officer, vendor clerk, 

purchasing clerk, and accounts payable clerk. 

• Administrative offices located on the campus of the 

authorizing school district which allows for sharing of 

personnel and access to high speed connection to the 

county office of education. 

• The executive director, chief business officer, director 

of education, director of human resources, and other 

staff members regularly attend local, regional, or 

state/national meetings and conferences (legal, 

charter, financial, human resources, compliance, etc.) 

to be well informed and keep the school healthy, 

innovative, and responsible. 

• The school retains the services of a Sacramento law 

firm with expertise/experience in charter law/SPED. 

• School policies and administrative regulations are 

regularly reviewed and revised, as needed, by the 

legal team, governing bodies, and leadership. 

• Strategic plan is updated on a three- to five-year cycle 

in accordance with school mission and academic goals. 

• The school subscribes to GAMUT Online from the 

California School Boards Association for guidance in 

school governance and policy issues, and is a member 

of several charter school organizations that provide 

programmatic, fiscal, legal, and educational support. 

• Marketing materials 

• Budget assumptions 

• Budget reports 

• Board agenda/minutes 


• Main office interviews 


• Main office interviews 

• Main office visitation 

• Conference calendars 

• SB740 documentation 

• WIGS 2008-2009 

• Retainer 

• Legal opinions 


• Fiscal policies/binder 

Membership Associations: 

• Personalized Learning 

Schools (APLUS+) 

• CA Charter School 

Association (CCSA) 

• Charter Schools Development 

Center (CSDC) 



ORGANIZATION AREAS OF STRENGTH 

• A personalized learning vision that is visible, clear and 

drives decisions (and attitudes) at the school. 

• An academic program that meets individual needs and 

interests while also preparing students for appropriate 

pathways post graduation. 

• The flexibility to make financial, human, physical, resource, 

or academic program changes as needs are identified. 

• Proactive and well-connected/informed leadership that 

helps to keep the school on a sound financial footing and 

knowledgeable about legislative impacts/changes. 

• An outstanding relationship with the sponsoring district. 

• A governing board that supports the professional staff in the 

carrying out of their responsibilities. 

• Continued progress towards finding the “right seat on the 

bus” for employees while meeting the needs of the school. 

• As a school of choice, all students, parents, and teachers 

have chosen to be a part of Julian Charter School. 

ORGANIZATION GROWTH AREAS 

• Seek additional ways to provide ongoing revenue streams to 

support teaching and learning; provide for ways to thrive 

during economic recovery and institute structures that work 

well in good economic times and also during the lean years. 

• As the governing board grows or evolves and/or vacancies are 

filled, seek members with diversified areas of expertise. 

• Provide ways for staff to more fully understand the breadth of 

program options, organizational structures, and systemic decision-making 

impacts; increase inter-program communication. 

• Build in leadership opportunities, succession planning and 

more opportunities to build capacity within existing staff. 

• Stay competitive with other charter schools. 

• Increase effectiveness and efficiency in delivering personalized 

learning; reduce demands on EFs. 

• Embrace 21st century skills for students and staff; infuse 21st 

century skills into strategic planning. 

• Continue to seek ways to support parent-teachers and 

independent study families. 

• Continue to build a data-driven PLC culture where staff 

development and professional growth stems from the work of 

the team and is responsive to teachers’ needs. 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization 


Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Organization 


Findings 

B. CURRICULUM 

B1. To what extent do all students participate in a 

rigorous, relevant, and coherent standards-based 

curriculum that supports the achievement of the 


learning results? [Through standards-based learning 

(i.e., what is taught and how it is taught), the expected 

schoolwide learning results are accomplished.] 

SUMMARY 

• JCS has made a concerted effort to revise all courses of study 

in order to make them standards-aligned, rigorous, engaging, 

and accessible for all students. Next steps include a more 

robust implementation of 21st century skills along with 

interdisciplinary themes and literacies (portion of ESLRs). 

• Articulating the standards for ourselves and for our parentteachers 

and students (“Friendly Standards” in K-8 and 

deconstructing the standards in 9-12) allows us to clearly 

define our expectations, to set common goals across courses 

and departments, and to create a common basis for assessment 

and evaluation of student learning and achievement. 

RIGOROUS, RESEARCH- BASED ACADEMIC CURRICULUM 

• Staff utilizes content area standards and expected 

schoolwide learning results (ESLRs) as a framework for 

curriculum, projects and other learning outcomes. 

• Curricula materials in core subjects (by grade/course) 

provide guidance on how to “unpack the standards” 

and teach for understanding. Next steps include a 

purposeful focus on 21st century skills (ICT Maps). 

• Staff is involved in monthly professional learning communities 

and bi-monthly forums as well as department 

and curriculum meetings to choose curriculum, work 

on curricular development, evaluation, and revisions. 

• Processes and decisions are regularly reviewed 

and/or redesigned to promote deep academic content 

knowledge and 21st century skills mastery. 

• Assistant directors and/or department chairs and 

curriculum leads assist teams in reviewing rigor, 

relevancy (power standards), and alignment. 

• Safety Net/special education providers use 

targeted, research-based curriculum. 

Evidence 

• Academic standards/CA 

Frameworks/ESLRs 

• K-8 “Friendly Standards,” 

deconstructing standards 

work, and curriculum maps 

• Standards-based IEP goals 

• ICT Literacy Maps 

• PLC, forum, site, department 

and curriculum team 

meeting notes 

• STAR exemplars 

• Subject area blueprints 

• Pre/post examples of 

curricular development 

• Curriculum adoption cycle 

• Curriculum Order Forms 

and JCS “Favorites” 

• Staff interviews 

• SPED population, 9.4% 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Curriculum 


• ESLRs are designed to promote the integration of skills 

such as critical thinking, problem solving and communication 

in the teaching of core academic subjects. 

• PLCs are beginning to work on designing curriculum 

that explicitly integrates 21st century skills 

within the context of core academic subjects. 

• Model units include the integration of 21st century 

skills in a meaningful, real-world context. 

• Curriculum design processes follow backwards-design 

principles (e.g., Understanding by Design); teams are 

in the process of identifying 21st century skills as key 

outcomes. 

• Curriculum-embedded assessments are common 

practice and may include authentic tasks. 

• Curriculum design within a personalized learning program 

provides opportunities to: 

• Learn about subjects of interest in depth 

• Connect new learning across disciplines 

• Connect new learning to prior knowledge 

• Construct new knowledge 

• Apply learning in real-world contexts 

• Curriculum design in a personalized learning program 

includes a variety of approaches to and philosophies 

of learning. Academies and the high school program 

more frequently differentiate curriculum using 

strategies from the first column below, while home 

study students may come to us with a style of education 

already decided (based on the second column) 

and then incorporate strategies from the first column. 

• For example, a home study family using a Classical 

approach studies a medieval scholastic curriculum 

where all subjects are taught concurrently. All of 

the children in the family study the same topic(s) 

at the same time with varying levels of curricular 

support materials and instruction. 

• ESLRs 

• Curriculum maps 

• PLC, forum, site, department 

and curriculum team 

meeting notes 

• Student interviews 

• Student work 

• Professional development 

logs and book lists 

• Benchmark tests, Friday 

Quick Checks, DataDirector 

assessment database 

• ReportWriter assignments 

• JCS Online and courses of 

study, pacing guides, scope 

and sequence charts (textbooks, 

CLO, mapping) 

• Concern reports/IEP goals 

• K-8 academy Individual 

Learning Plans (ILPs) 

• Teacher and parent 

interviews 

• Handouts from parent 

professional development 

sessions 

Resource Center: 

• Houses over 990,000 

pieces of curriculum and 

learning tools 

• Includes professional 

development resources 

for both parents and 

teachers 

• Learning Styles 

• Project/Problembased 

Learning 

• Constructivism 

• Brain-based 

• Metacognition 

• Experiential 

• Charlotte Mason 

• Classical 

• Eclectic 

• Traditional 

• Unit Studies 

• Unschooling 

• Waldorf 

Ongoing and Future 

Professional Development: 

• Curricular design 

• Curricular approaches 

• Curriculum differentiation 

• Backwards-design 

• Curriculum mapping 



PARTICIPATION I N AND ACCESS TO A VARIETY OF CURRICULUM CHOICES 

• JCS offers multi-faceted learning environments to provide 

personalized learning opportunities for students. 

• Students have access to home study, learning 

center classes, K-8 academies (4 days/week), 

6-12 academies (2-3 days/week), online classes 

(enrichment and core classes), online and inperson 

tutoring, eClubs, field trips, service 

learning, spelling and geography bees, science fair, 

vendor course instruction, Safety Net (RtI) 

instruction and special education instruction. 

• Academies and home study offer levels of instruction 

and customization within all levels to support 

student learning: 

o In high school many factors, including results 

on different assessments, are used to 

determine curriculum level. Parent input and 

student wishes are also considered. 

• High school students have three curriculum 

options for meeting requirements for a 

diploma: college preparatory (CP), noncollege 

preparatory (NCP) or basic curriculum. 

An additional curriculum option, 

foundational, is available for non-diploma 

bound students with IEPs. 

• While all high school students are 

encouraged to take college-prep courses, 

some students have already decided that a 

four-year university is not in their plans. 

o In K-8, teacher judgment, parent wishes, and 

assessment results are used to place students 

in the appropriate level for each subject area. 

• While a fourth grade student might be 

receiving English-language arts support at 

the second grade level, all students are 

provided access to grade-level standards. 

• Similarly, all students are expected to meet 

grade-level standards, but are not limited to 

those standards (e.g., a fourth grade student 

may be working with a sixth grade math 

curriculum). 

• INSITE program provides a 2- to 4- day onsite program 

for students needing additional supports or structure, 

or who want to focus on one or two courses at a time; 

four teachers staff the two INSITE programs (SD/M). 

• EF/teacher files and 

anecdotal records 

• Program descriptions 

• Student program options 

• Flyers for learning center 

classes, eClubs, online 

classes and events 

• Vendor course list 

• Safety Net progress notes 

• Safety Net strategies/tools 

• Special education progress 

notes and IEPs 

• Parent wikis (resources) 

• Follett online catalog for 

curriculum resources 

• Master agreement details 

• Curriculum text options in 

the Resource Center 

• Curriculum courses of 

study in ReportWriter 

• Master agreement details 

• Records of discussions 

about CP mastery and level 

of rigor required of NCP 

courses 

• Records of discussions 

about specialist-designed 

and academy courses 

• Discussions with parents, 

teacher or facilitator and 

students 

High School Departments: 

• English 

• Math 

• Science 

• Social Science 

• Foreign Languages (FL 

teachers are placed on 

core course PLC teams) 

K-8 Curriculum Teams: 

• Language Arts 

• Math 

• Science 

• Social Science 

• Technology 



• JCS is able to be flexible and adapt the curriculum 

quickly at any point in the year. 

• Especially at the K-8 level, but also to some extent 

at the high school level, students are not limited to 

one curriculum choice and there is the ability to 

change curriculum to better meet student needs. 

• In addition to or instead of curriculum changes, 

assignments can also be changed or altered to 

better suit student needs in meeting standards. 

• Pace of the curriculum can be adjusted. 

• Additional strategies and interventions are suggested 

and put in place by assessment findings. 

• Students who continue to struggle after teacherand 

parent-led strategies have been tried are 

referred to a Safety Net team. The team is a 

precursor to an SST and often is able to make 

suggestions that bring about positive changes. 

• Tutoring options have been expanded each year, 

and now includes online tutoring in some subjects 

in addition to in-person, phone and email tutoring. 

• Intervention programs and English-language 

support are provided through programs such as 

CompassLearning (e.g., Response to Invention, ELL 

for Elementary, ELL for Secondary). 

• All students have access to curricular choices that 

enable them to meet the graduation requirements. 

• In examining data, our students struggle in the 

areas of writing and math (especially algebra) and 

therefore a ninth grade writing course is a mandatory 

course, an algebra support class is offered as 

an elective, and a variety of CAHSEE remediation 

or interventions are provided (grades 9-12). 

• All academic and career-technical programs are meaningful 

and open to all students. 

• Elective courses may be custom designed to fit the 

needs and interests of the student. 

• High school core courses may be taken as a portfolio 

option for students/families that want to use 

alternative curriculum or develop a course of study 

independent of the specialist-designed course of 

study. Portfolio approval requires a pre-course 

meeting to review the course of study proposed. 

Assessments include the course final exam and a 

mid/final portfolio meeting to assess learning. 

• Curriculum/textbook 

choices available in the 

resource center 

• Curriculum purchased with 

EUs 

• Curriculum/courses of 

study in ReportWriter 

• ReportWriter custom 

courses 

• Concern reports 

• Safety Net forms 

• Tutoring hours 

• Elluminate schedule 

• Writing course curriculum 

• Algebra support class 

• CLO intervention scope 

and sequence (RtI/ELL) 


• Writing requirement 

• Health/life skills 

requirement 

• Graduation requirements 

• JCS course list 

• “a-g” list 

• Curriculum order form 

• Community college and 

ROP course lists 

• Custom course sample 

• Portfolio option and 

sample portfolio work 

Note: 

• JCS does not offer Honors 

or AP classes 

• Students may earn high 

school and college credits 

by taking courses at a 

community college 



• Staff analyzes, evaluates and modifies curriculum and 

curriculum-related policies (e.g., mandatory writing 

policy, homework/grading policies) to support student 

learning. 

• Parent-teachers and staff utilize: 

• Technology to enhance curriculum, to support 

student learning, and to offer a variety of learning 

environments (e.g., JCS Online, CLO, Elluminate). 

• Virtual and other communities of practice through 

Web 2.0 tools such as wikis to share curriculum, 

resources and discuss student learning. 

• Online assessment tools and resources to assess 

student learning (e.g., MAP, Discovery Education). 

• Curricular programs and tools to facilitate access 

to curriculum (e.g. graphic organizers, scaffolding, 

EBSCO). 

• Leveled reading books/individualized book lists 

based on Lexile scores to differentiate curriculum. 

• A variety of modalities to support learning styles. 

• Electives, field experiences, and internships to 

explore areas of interest and career-related 

experiences. 

• Interdisciplinary learning to pursue some topics in 

depth. 

• Four-year plans, interest inventories, SMART goal 

setting, and COIN3 as additional information 

sources to help meet a student’s curricular needs. 

• Handbooks (home study 

grading policies); sitebased 

homework/ grading 

policies; policy binder 

• JCS Online 

• Compass Learning 

• Parent and staff wikis 

• MAP testing 

• Elluminate classes/tutoring 

• WebQuests 

• EBSCO online library 


• Online resource catalog 

• Student Lexile book list 

• School-to-career tools 

• Sample student SMART 

goal action plan 

• 21st century skills framework 

• Learning styles inventory 

• Master agreement 




Findings 

B2. To what extent do all students have access to the 

school’s program and assistance with a personal 

learning plan to prepare them for the pursuit of their 

academic, personal and school-to-career goals? 

SUMMARY 

• Students’ four-year plans note future goals, chart progress 

in meeting requirements for graduation and/or college 

entrance, and guide course selection and sequence. 

• Learning plans are viewed as flexible blueprints and are 

revised and updated as needed; counselors review all fouryear 

plans annually (at a minimum). 

• Staff and academic counselors (one home study/one 6-12 

academies) consult with students and families and discuss 

the connections between courses, future options, and 

academic performance with students. 

• Students have avenues to explore personal/career interests. 

PERSONAL L EARNING PLAN— A CADEMIC A CHIEVEMENT 

• All students have personalized learning plans that are 

used as a basis for course selection, curriculum level, 

program choices, and exploration of future options. 

• K-8 home school families collaborate with staff at 

least every 20 days to discuss curriculum and 

instruction with frequent phone calls and e-mails 

in-between meetings. 

• Academy families meet on an ongoing basis with 

staff to discuss individual learning plans (K-8) and 

four-year plans (9-12), and meet at least quarterly 

to discuss student progress. 

• High school students develop a four-year plan with 

parents and staff. All four-year plans are reviewed 

by an academic counselor. 

• Implications of/sequence for math courses is carefully 

explained to facilitators, advisors and coordinators 

to guide middle school math placement. 

• Parents and students help develop IEPs with 

special education staff via IEP meetings. 

• Additional resources are available for parents to 

collaborate/develop as parent-teachers: monthly 

seminars (K-8 ACs), Meet and Greet meetings, 

Curriculum Expo, parent support groups, and 

parent advisory groups. 

Evidence 

• Goal sheets 

• 9-12 four-year plans 

• K-8 academy individual 

leaning plans (ILPs) 

• Master agreements 

• Flyers/e-mails 

• IEPs 

• Graduation rate 

• Parent/student interviews 

• INSITE program 



• “In danger of failing” notices are sent to home study 

parents; academies counsel students not on track. 

• Personalized learning program offers flexibility to 

meet goals (e.g., make up credit deficiencies). 

• Facilitators or advisors/coordinators regularly evaluate 

transcripts, assess student progress toward graduation 

(and college) requirements, and discuss post-high 

school options. 

• Facilitators and advisors/site coordinators provide the 

first level of support for college-bound students and 

their parents to help with course selection, application 

process, and the pursuit of scholarships. 

• Letters to parents 



PERSONAL L EARNING PLAN—FUTURE GOALS 

• Middle school and high school settings offer a variety 

of transition programs and resources: 

• Field trips to colleges, college/career fairs, job shadowing, 

guest speakers, and opportunities (SPAWAR 

– Girl’s Day Out, Civil Air Patrol) are offered. 

• School counselors provide information to access 

SAT preparation, scholarships, FAFSA, grants, and 

community college coursework. 

• School counselors (and advisors) hold individual 

student/parent conferences and community 

meetings (grad/college requirements and other 

career/college needs). 

• Letters and packets are provided for parents and 

students that include testing information 

graduation requirements versus college prep 

requirements, overview of resources available for 

college and career searches, etc. 

• Math chair counsels middle/high school students 

and/or facilitator about next year course options. 

• Assessment and self-assessment tools are utilized 

across the school to allow student research and 

goal-setting, such as: career interest surveys, 

COIN3, student learning surveys, ASVAB and life 

skills courses. 

• Work study, internship programs and access to 

career technical elective courses provide high 

school students career exploration experience. 

• The 7 Habits of Successful Teens, recommended 

reading in the Life Skills course, helps teens make 

better decisions and improve sense of self-worth. 

• Required personal statement essays help students 

clarify goals and assist teachers, specialists, and 

facilitators better understand each student. 

• School calendar 

• Flyers 

• Learning style surveys 

• Online student portfolios 

(COIN3) 

• SMART goal sheets 

• Work Experience 

Education portfolio and 

work experience records 

• Course descriptions and 

syllabi 

• College Board data 

• Driver’s Education records 

• Handbook 

• Workshop agendas 

• Transcripts 

• Counselor packets/records 

• Math chair interview 

• EF/parent interviews 

• E-mail documentation 

Notable Progress: 

• Seniors are receiving an 

increasing number of 

scholarships and awards as 

a result of the encouragement 

and support offered 

by staff and community 



• 6-12 academies offer unique opportunities for 

students (e.g., fencing). 

• K-8 field trips offer a wide range of opportunities 

to explore personal interests and career interests. 

• Service learning curriculum such as Character 

Counts or participation in social action projects 

strengthens the school-to-life connection and 

promotes student academic achievement and civic 

and social development. 

• Vendor course instruction provides ways for 

students to explore interests and passions. 

• Character Counts 

curriculum (AC) 

• Unique course lists 

• VCI list 



Findings 

B3. To what extent are students able to meet all the 

requirements of graduation upon completion of the high 

school program? 

SUMMARY 

• Upon completion of the high school program, 96% percent 

of all students have met the graduation requirements. 

• Staff monitors and supports progress of students toward 

meeting graduation (or college) requirements and senior 

audits identify seniors who are still behind in credits; “in 

danger of failing” letters and/or regular progress reports are 

sent each semester. 

• The school is at the beginning stages of implementing 

methods of tracking graduates. 

Evidence 

STUDENT UNDERSTANDING OF GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS 

• Staff monitors progress of students toward meeting 

graduation (or college) requirements: 

• Facilitators or advisors/coordinators regularly 

evaluate transcripts and assess student progress 

toward graduation (and college) requirements. 

• Senior audits identify seniors who are behind in 

credits and follow-up throughout the year. 

• CAHSEE scores are reviewed to ensure that this 

graduation requirement is met and/or that curriculum 

and/or interventions are adjusted as needed. 

STUDENT SUPPORTS IN MEETING GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS 

• CAHSEE flowchart 

• Process for regular review 

of student data that 

provides information on 

students meeting the 

graduation requirements, 

including CAHSEE 

• Grad requirement chart 

• UC/CSU grad requirement 

chart 

• Staff provides multiple supports to ensure students 

meet graduation requirements. 

• Placement tests determine level/schedule of 

advancement in math courses to support meeting 

the algebra requirement. 

• Students are introduced to CAHSEE requirements 

in middle school; individualized or small-group instruction 

(stepped-up curriculum and intervention 

options for different grades) aids CAHSEE prep. 

• All ninth grade students are required to take a 

writing course for success in other courses. 

• CP (meets a-g requirements for UC/CSU), NCP or 

basic curriculum levels are provided; altered 

schedule of courses are available. 

• CP foreign languages (Spanish and ASL) are offered 

via Elluminate (online). 

• CP, NCP and basic curriculum 

descriptions 

• Placement tests 

• Safety Net progress notes 

• Special education progress 

notes 

• Tutoring schedules on JCS 

website 

• Writing course description 

and syllabus 

• CAHSEE intervention 

options chart 

• View archived language 

class session 




• Other supports include: 

Safety Net and special education instruction is 

offered. 

Online and in‐person tutoring is offered for all 

curricular areas. 

Specialist offer office hours and workshops. 

GRADUATE OR POST‐GRADUATE STUDENT SUCCESS 

• Senior surveys provide information about students’ 

plans post‐graduation. 

• StudentTracker from the National Student Clearinghouse 

was ordered 7/15/09 to assist with follow‐up of 

graduates. 

• An alumni portion of the JCS website is planned. 

• Safety Net records 

• Tutoring schedules 

• Counselor interview 

• Senior surveys summary 

• After graduation plans: 

18%, four year college 

55%, community college 

4%, military 

10%, technical school 

13%, workforce 

CURRICULUM AREAS OF STRENGTH 

• Students have multiple avenues of support, program options, 

and resource selections to help them meet academic needs 

and challenges. 

• All core departments have developed courses of study that 

align content standards, include avenues of choices within 

the assignments, and departments in grades 9‐12 (K‐8 in 

process) use common assessments and/or benchmarks. 

• Staff is very responsive to student and parent needs and 

monitors student progress on a regular basis. 

• Student learning plans, curriculum maps, course outlines, 

student placement, and other curricular components are 

viewed as pieces in process; updates and revisions take 

place frequently. 

CURRICULUM AREAS OF GROWTH 

• Develop student‐monitored learning plans and additional 

levels of support for SMART goal setting and monitoring. 

• Develop more coordination and alignment of curricular 

expectations between programs. 

• Develop additional K‐8 benchmark or other informal 

assessments for home school students to assess mastery of 

concepts in relation to state standards. 

Chapter 4: Self‐Study Findings: Curriculum 

68 Julian Charter School Focus on Learning 2009‐2010

• Develop rubrics or other means of assessing how concepts 

and skills align with one another and state standards; 

increase quality and quantity of standards-based rubrics. 

• Expand opportunities for writing across the curriculum as a 

tool to help students think critically, problem solve, create, 

innovate, communicate and collaborate. 

• Strengthen standards-based community service involvement, 

especially in the home study program. 

• Continue to build a career technical education path for high 

school students not planning on attending a four-year 

college or university. 

• Continue to expand the use of technology for student 

support and direct instruction opportunities, and increase 

the integration of 21st Century Learning Skills/ESLRs into 

the curriculum. 

• Increase the number of students meeting the “a-g” requirements 

for CSU and UC. 

• Make a more concerted effort to track alumni. 





C. INSTRUCTION 

C1. To what extent are all students involved in 

challenging learning experiences to achieve the 


learning results? 

C2. To what extent do all teachers use a variety of 

strategies and resources, including technology and 

experiences beyond the textbook and classroom that 

actively engage students, emphasize higher order 

thinking skills, and help them succeed at high levels? 

SUMMARY 

• Rigorous college prep classes are provided for both home 

study and academy high school students as well as flexibility 

for students to take courses at local community colleges and 

through career technical education programs. 

• A wide range of activities are available at all grade and ability 

levels that challenge students to think critically and creatively. 

• Instruction includes assorted ways for students to be involved 

outside of the classroom and in the community to extend 

learning experiences into real-world applications. 

• There is improved usage of learning targets to communicate 

learning outcomes to students and formative assessment 

techniques to increase student involvement in learning. 

• There is a noticeably increased use of online instruction and 

technology within course outlines. 

• Ongoing professional development and collaboration keep 

teachers current in instructional methodology. 

• Teachers provide individualized instruction and guidance 

based on student needs and interests. 

• Teachers utilize technology to emphasize higher order 

thinking skills and provide real world experiences. 

• Teachers support struggling students with a variety of 

instructional strategies. 

• Educators employ an appropriate and diverse range of 

instructional strategies. 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Instruction 


Findings 

CHALLENGING L EARNING E XPERIENCES 

• Between 50-75% of instructional strategies utilize a 

student-centered approach to teaching and learning 

core academic subjects. 

• Differentiated instruction 

• Inquiry-based learning 

• Learning activities are rarely the same for all students. 

• Learning experiences may be interdisciplinary, crossage 

(all children within a family are involved with the 

same topic of study), and experiential. 

• Specialist-designed lessons are evaluated against rigor 

and relevancy to student experiences and whether the 

authentic application of knowledge and understanding 

are frequently present. 

• Activities where students act as co-creators of knowledge 

along with other students and teachers are 

becoming increasingly more common. 

• Although still building expertise, teacher and parent 

engagement with digital technologies has led to more 

student-centered learning. Examples include: 

• Digital Citizens Unite, Online Production Design, 

“published” work products, (online) peer editing, 

collaborative or individual student-designed 

content, global technology projects, photo journal 

essays, and topical video production 

• Project-based assignments promote engaged and 

challenged students in all programs. Examples include: 

• Creation of math games (MMA), meteorology 

research (AA), current events project (SDA), tower 

project (PVA), SDLC Times (student-produced 

newsletter), novel songs, movie poster project, 

ancient man magazine, Egyptian skit, Photo Story, 

movie creation, Glogster and erosion projects 

• Students are involved in co-curricular activities to 

extend their learning experiences. 

• Garden clubs 

• Student-led tutoring program for refugees 

• Service learning project involving the re-vegetation 

of burned areas in the east county 

• Community service as part of senior projects 

• Schoolwide culture of high expectations. 

Evidence 

• Classroom and student 

work observations 

• Student notebooks, portfolios 

and project photos 

• Rubric, instructions, and 

student assignments 

• Rubrics provided when 

work is assigned 

• Senior project writing and 

artifacts 

• Assignments in online 

grade book/JCS Online 

• ReportWriter specialist 

and facilitator assignments 

Note: 

• Developing a unit or 

course of study explicitly 

based on the ESLRs 

demands a studentcentered 

approach to 

learning; PLCs are moving 

to the point where they 

can develop model units in 

the core curricular areas. 

Most Recent Survey Results: 

• 91.4% of students feel that 

their educational program 

is preparing them for their 

future. 

• Majority of parents indicate 

that students are 

being educated in a 

manner that meets 

expectations and allows 

for personalization and 

student success. 

• Class syllabi, parent 

meetings, orientations, 

back to school nights 



INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND RESOURCES 

• Through observations and interviews with teachers, 

our self-study shows that educators facilitate student 

acquisition of knowledge and skills using a range of 

methods. The majority of teachers use three or more 

instructional strategies frequently. Strategies are used 

in academy lessons, modeled by home study teachers, 

and, when possible, taught to home study parents: 

• Identifying Similarities and Differences: comparing, 

classifying, creating metaphors, creating analogies 

• Summarizing and Note Taking: analyzing, synthesizing, 

prioritizing data, restating, organizing 

• Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition: student 

self-recognition and goal setting, correlation 

between effort and achievement, effective praise, 

recognition tokens, pause-prompt-praise method 

(practices varies widely) 

• Homework and Practice: establishing and communicating 

a homework policy (academies), purpose 

of homework, student assignment sheets or planners, 

commenting on homework, massed and 

distributive practice 

• Nonlinguistic Representations: creating graphic 

organizers, using other nonlinguistic tools (strong) 

• Cooperative Learning: elements of cooperative 

learning, varying grouping criteria, group size 

• Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback: setting, 

personalizing, and communicating objectives, 

negotiating contracts, using criterion-referenced 

and assessment feedback, peer feedback, student 

self-assessment (area of growth) 

• Generating and Testing Hypothesis: systems analysis, 

problem-solving, decision making, historical 

investigation, experimental inquiry, invention (in 

process with work on 21st century learning) 

• Cues, Questions, and Advance Organizers: focusing 

important information, explicit cues, asking inferential 

and analytical questions, expository and 

narrative advanced organizers, skimming, specific 

types of knowledge, vocabulary, details, organizing 

ideas, skills and processes. 

• Students have the tools necessary to organize, access 

and apply knowledge. 

• EBSCO database available to all students and part 

of teacher assignments 

• Research papers, portfolios and reflections 

• Sample lesson plan 

• Classroom observation 

• Student notebooks, 

journaling, goal setting 

sheets, and learning target 

checklists 

• Links to graphic organizers 

• Marzano’s instructional 

strategies list 

Instructional Cornerstones 

to Build Upon: 

• Instruction is designed to 

connect with all four 

learning styles using 

various combinations of 

experience, reflection, 

conceptualization, and 

experimentation. Parents 

and teachers use: sound, 

music, visuals, movement, 

experience, and talking. 

• Instructional practices 

actively engage students in 

the planning and implementation 

of teaching and 

learning activities. 

• Educators construct 

lessons that enable a 

student’s progression from 

teacher- or parent-led to 

self-directed learning. 

• Educators construct 

lessons that foster the 

ability to “learn how to 

learn” (and the application 

of this ability to selfmonitor 

and improve 

learning progress across all 

subjects). 

• Teacher and student 

accounts 




• Students think, reason, and problem solve in group 

and individual activities. 

• Discussions and class wikis 

• Student-created rubrics 

• Self and group assessments 

• Writer’s workshops and peer editing 

• Students use technology. 

• Student-created PowerPoints 

• Use of wikis, blogs, and Google apps 

• Use of Photo Story and video production 

• CompassLearning Odyssey 

• Online courses: Spanish III, Digital Citizens Unite, 

Algebra Support (and tutoring), CLO high school 

courses, Discovery Streaming 

• Students use materials and resources and construct 

learning beyond the textbook. 

• Résumé writing 

• Current events (newspapers and media) 

• Students participate in job shadowing 

• Assorted field trips 

• Vendor Course Instruction 

• Internships and work experience 

• Enrollment in community college/ROP classes 

• Participation in SPAWAR – Girl’s Day Out, BE WiSE 

(San Diego Science Alliance), and Civil Air Patrol 

• Service learning projects 

• Goals for Linking Instruction and Assessment: 

• Feedback on mastery is timely and geared toward 

individual learning styles 

• Teachers monitor progress and adjust instruction 

(curriculum, strategies, gaps, tools, scaffolding) 

• Ongoing formative assessment involves students 

in the evaluation of their own learning and goal 

setting 

• Teachers work as coaches to facilitate learning 

• Rubrics are provided when work is assigned 

• Student progress in mastering core subjects and 

21st century skills is measured over time through a 

comprehensive, balanced assessment approach 

(e.g., formative, benchmark, summative and/or 

large-scale assessments) 

• Capstone projects, portfolios, and performancebased 

work products are used to formatively 

assess student performance 

• English class wikis 

• Rubric for human body 3-D 

model 

• Spanish self assessment 

• Writing workshop peer 

editing sheet 

• Student work sample of 

science project 

• English and science wikis 

and websites, K-8 projects 

• Elluminate schedule 

• Classroom observation 


• English and life skills 

assignments, social studies 

current events project, 

ROAR week (MA) 

• Field trips to colleges, Salk 

Institute, sheriff substation 


• Refugee tutoring program 

(AA), native plant revegetation 

project (PVA) 

• Learning Styles 

• Goal setting sheet 

• Rubrics 



INSTRUCTION AREAS OF STRENGTH 

• JCS focuses on personalized learning. Students have a 

variety of choices to pursue their education including online 

learning, personalized electives, classroom instruction, 

community college and ROP classes, and a large selection of 

vendor course instruction. 

• Regularly scheduled time is set aside to discuss curriculum 

and instruction. 

• Students are provided with multiple ways to demonstrate 

outcomes (i.e., the ability to incorporate projects of interest, 

or different modalities into assignments). 

• The implementation of instructional modules Compass- 

Learning Odyssey) based on MAP test results (K-8) provides 

high quality direct instruction, enrichment, or intervention. 

• Resources have been purchased to make communicating, 

teaching and tutoring students more effective across a large 

geographic area. 

• A strong effort is made to not only place students appropriately 

from the beginning, but to not “sit” on an issue and 

instead take swift action to ensure student success. 

• JCS offers multiple program options for students—we are 

not one size fits all. 

• Numerous creative and engaging learning experiences are 

embedded in all JCS programs. 

INSTRUCTION AREAS OF GROWTH 

• Expanded process of examining student work using rubrics, 

including student-generated rubrics for content area writing. 

• Need for common assessments across all instructional 

programs to provide the data necessary to analyze the 

effectiveness of instructional strategies. 

• Develop grading policies, staff calibration, and rubrics to 

bring consistency to final exam scores and semester grades. 

• Expand opportunities for student-centered project-based 

activities into student learning paths; work with parents to 

design more activity-based curriculum. 

• Further articulate the linkage between field experiences 

(field trips, job shadowing, service learning) and curriculum 

standards; build out internship and career path programs. 

• Move from providing distance-based learning opportunities 

to authentic online learning. 





D. ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

D1. To what extent does the school use a professionally 

acceptable assessment process to collect, disaggregate, 

analyze and report student performance data to the 

parents and other shareholders of the community? 

SUMMARY 

• JCS uses a variety of informal and formal assessments to 

monitor and guide student learning. 

• Stakeholders are provided assessment feedback in a variety 

of ways from individual progress reports to disaggregated 

and schoolwide performance analyses. 

• Appropriate tools are in place for the collection and analysis 

of performance data. 

Findings 

Evidence 

COLLECTING DATA 

• Four types of data are collected: demographic, process, 

results, and perception. 

• Student demographic and result data is collected 

and stored in our student information system— 

School Pathways SIS. 

• Perception data is primarily gathered through 

paper and online surveys and stored in the public 

folders. (As we become more experienced with 

DataDirector, more of the perception data will be 

stored and shared through that venue.) 

• Process data is collected in various leadership 

teams and PLCs and stored in the public folders. 

DISAGGREGATING S TUDENT DATA 

• Student data is collected, disaggregated, analyzed, 

and provided to different stakeholder groups by the 

Accountability Coordinator (CSTs, CAHSEE, semester 

grade correlations, achievement by program, etc.). 

• Department chairs/PLCs disaggregate data particular 

to their teams (writing samples, placement tests). 

• Student data is disaggregated and analyzed in Data- 

Director. Reports (ad hoc/custom, shared, pre-built) 

allow comparative data across/between variables. 

• Examples include: multi-year comparison, 

proficiency, multiple assessment, and profiles by 

grade, teacher, program, demographic, or course. 

• School Pathways SIS 

• Demographics, state 

test results, transcript, 

and master agreement 

information 

• Data Director 

• Data warehouse for all 

data domains 

• Public Folders 

• Raw data, reports 

• Sample reports 

• Disaggregated data for PLCs 

and teachers include strand, 

item, and student work 

• DataDirector reports 

• Data from SP SIS 

• School-/state-mandated 

test results (CSTs, MAP, 

CAHSEE, CELDT, finals) 

• Formative and profiles 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: Assessment and Accountability 


ANALYZING S TUDENT DATA 

• Assessment data is analyzed in leadership teams and 

PLCs: 

• State-mandated tests (e.g., CSTs, CAHSEE, PFT). 

• School-adopted diagnostic tests (NWEA MAP, 

CLO, COIN3, Renaissance Learning’s Baby STAR). 

• Curriculum-embedded assessments: 

o Math placement tests are administered to 

high school (or applicable middle school) 

students at the beginning of the year. 

o Finals are administered in all core classes to 

high school students. 

• Formative assessments: 

o 

Formative assessment work is overseen 

both by the educational facilitator/teacher 

and the parent-teacher. 

• Student results data is analyzed and provided to different 

stakeholder groups by the Accountability 

Coordinator. 

• At the beginning of each school year, findings are 

used to guide the direction of the teachers and 

departments: 

o Teachers: results of how current students 

performed on the previous year’s CSTs. 

o Department chairs and curriculum team 

leads: student data for courses/subjects. 

• Mid-year and end-of-year data collections include 

course grade and CAHSEE/STAR comparisons. 

• Non-test related data (e.g., enrollment and mobility 

rates) are analyzed in administrative and leadership 

teams and shared with PLCs and other stakeholders, 

as appropriate, by the Accountability Coordinator. 

REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT D ATA FINDINGS 

• Numerous methods are used to report student performance 

data to students, parents and community. 

• The high school program uses two learning 

management systems, JCS Online (home study) 

and TeacherEase (academies), to report progress 

and communicate with parents and students. 

• State-mandated test scores (CSTs and CAHSEE) 

and other test reports (PSAT, MAP) are mailed 

home to parents and/or reviewed at family 

meetings (home study) or conferences 

(academies). 

• Data/PLC training agendas 


• Public folders: raw data, 

disaggregated data, and 

data analyses 

• Math placement tests 

• Core subject finals 

• Formative data: 

• Writing journals 

• Quizzes/benchmarks 

• PBLs 

• ILPs 

• Performance-based and 

other observable 

activity-based work 

• PLC department work 

• Teacher reports for current 

student rosters 

• Department reports 

• Non-test related data 

• CST/CAHSEE reports 

• JCS Online/TeacherEase 



• Other reporting methods include: 

• Report cards are given to students and parents 

each semester. 

• The School Accountability Report Card (SARC) is 

posted on the school website. 

• “In danger of failure” letters are sent home midsemester 

to the parents of any home study high 

school student who is in danger of failing the 

course. 

• Other data reporting methods (facilitator/teacher to 

supervisor) related to student performance include: 

• Concern Report: Includes student profile with 

performance measures, the nature of the 

concern, what changes and accommodations 

have already been attempted, suggestions from 

the Safety Net team, and action items. 

• High School CAHSEE Intervention Form: In-house 

form records all scores and interventions that 

have been attempted to date for students who 

have not passed the CAHSEE by the end of the 

10th grade. 

• Reports cards/progress 

reports/parent letters 

• E-mail/telephone calls 

• Governing board reports 

• SARC 

• Diagnostic reports (e.g., 

MAP Student Progress 

Report) 

• Concern Reports 

• CAHSEE Intervention Forms 



D2. a) To what extent do teachers employ a variety of 

assessment strategies to evaluate student learning? 

b) To what extent do students and teachers use these 

findings to modify the teaching/learning process for the 

enhancement of the educational progress of every 

student? 

SUMMARY 

• A great strength of the JCS teaching staff is the ability to use 

a wide variety of assessment strategies to evaluate student 

learning. Our academy teachers are actively involved in 

reading and discussing Stiggin’s Classroom Assessment for 

Student Learning, which explains that assessment can 

create, not simply measure, increased achievement. 

• Parent-teachers, especially parents of K-8 students, value 

and collect data about student achievement in a less consistent 

manner. Formal assessments of student learning may 

be viewed as separate from instruction and something that 

is done to “help” the school or for grades, rather than an 

integral part of the teaching and learning process. 

• The teaching staff, parents, and students use the findings of 

a variety of assessment strategies to modify the teaching 

and learning process. 

Findings 

Evidence 

ASSESSMENT S TRATEGIES TO EVALUATE STUDENT WORK 

• JCS begins the year ensuring that students are placed 

appropriately in their courses. 

• Teachers, parents and students look at student 

assessment information from the previous year, 

student placement tests (in math) and pre-tests of 

student knowledge such as MAP and Baby STAR. 

• Teachers, parents and students provide input on 

student strengths and growth areas, areas of 

interest, and plans for the future. 

• Staff, parents and student look at transcripts, 

report cards, or other student profile data. 

• Throughout the year, some data are used on a daily 

basis, some monthly or quarterly, and some annually 

to evaluate student learning. 


• Student courses of study 

• Four-year plans 


• Data pyramid 



• Formative and summative assessment strategies (see 

D1) include state-mandated tests, school-adopted 

diagnostic tests, curriculum-embedded assessments 

and performance-based assessments. 

• In addition to the variety of assessments listed in D1, 

parents play a large role in individual analysis of student 

work on a daily basis. Parents are expected to 

grade student work daily to inform instruction. 

• CSTs and CAHSEE 

• MAP, CLO, Baby STAR 

• Math placement tests 

• Core subject finals 

• Quizzes/benchmarks 


• Journals/portfolios 

• Activity-based work 

• ILPs 

MODIFYING THE T EACHING/LEARNING PROCESS 

• One of the most effective ways that the teaching and 

learning process can be altered is by selecting a 

different JCS program option. Choices include: 

• Academy classes, similar to traditional classrooms 

but kicked up a notch, where students spend 

between two and four days at a site; 

• An INSITE program where students work on all 

subjects with two teachers in a self-contained 

classroom and the students are on site two to four 

days a week; and 

• A home study program where most of the learning 

takes place at home, but students can also take 

learning center (or academy) classes. As needed, 

more intensive mentoring with the parent-teacher 

or more frequently scheduled family meetings may 

be incorporated. 

• Other means of modifying the teaching and learning 

process that are employed include: 

• Curriculum modifications are implemented, 

including differentiated assignments. Practices 

include: lower reading level of instructional or 

resource material that still provides access to the 

standards, assignments that provide more student 

choice, or assignments that include more breadth 

in lieu of multiple assignments. 

• Instructional strategies that are proven to work for 

a particular student are engaged more frequently 

(e.g., advance organizer, pre-learning, modality, or 

the curriculum delivery method is changed (e.g., 

adjusted from primarily direct instruction to 

computer-aided learning or cooperative learning) 

• Pacing of curriculum delivery is adjusted. 

• We are building on the premise that when students 

are active participants in recording and understanding 

their performance, they can use this understanding to 

guide and refine their learning and work. 

• Program options listed in 

parent handbook 

• Program observations 




D3. To what extent does the school, with the support of 

the district and community, have an assessment and 

monitoring system to determine student progress toward 

achievement of the academic standards and the 

expected schoolwide learning results? 

SUMMARY 

• As noted in D2a and D2b, JCS uses a variety of assessment 

strategies, and the findings of these strategies, to modify the 

teaching and learning processes. This is possible because JCS 

has an assessment and monitoring system in place to determine 

student progress toward achievement of state standards and 

our ESLRs. Our monitoring system examines students as 

individuals and as groups. 

Findings 

• Monitoring of individual students 

• The process of monitoring students begins the moment 

a student enrolls with JCS. Previous student 

data is examined so correct student program 

placement and curricular choices can occur. 

• Ongoing and frequent student monitoring: 

o Parents/students: daily progress monitoring 

o Academy teachers: class time/weekly checks, 

learning management system, if applicable 

o Home study teachers: monthly meetings 

o Home study high school teachers: weekly 

monitoring on learning management system 

• Monitoring of students in groups 

• PLCs analyze assessment results to effect change 

of practice and instruction: grade levels and 

department are moving towards common 

assessments, aligned to standards, given at regular 

intervals during the school year, and reviewing 

assessment results to determine needed curricular 

changes. 

Evidence 

• Student files 

• Teacher observations 

• Collection of student work 

used for learning period 

envelopes 

• Student data on the 

learning management 

systems 

• Counselor meets with any 

student scoring Far Below 

Basic or Below Basic on the 

California Standards Tests 

• Student reports of 

achievement by group 



D4. To what extent does the assessment of student 

achievement in relation to the academic standards and 

the expected schoolwide learning results drive the 

school’s program, its regular evaluation and improvement 

and usage of resources? 

SUMMARY 

• Student learning is the primary purpose of our school and 

how we use resources and what changes are made to our 

school’s program(s), including its regular evaluation, are 

based on how well our students are meeting state standards 

and our school ESLRs. 

• A significant change has occurred since the last WASC visit in 

the area of using data to drive decision making within JCS. 

Data, such as student test scores, are being more globally 

reviewed and the staff is beginning to embrace using these data 

to plan future programmatic changes, student interventions, 

and the individualization of student educational programs. 

Findings 

• Resource usage changes driven by student achievement 

in relation to the academic standards and ESLRs. 

• Textbook selection: Additional curriculum options, 

Prentice Hall Math 6, Pre-algebra and Algebra I, 

were added to support middle school math. 

• Technological systems: 

o Learning management system: provides oversight 

and teacher/home communication. 

o Elluminate: supports online classes at middle 

and high school levels; also used for tutoring. 

o DataDirector: allows analysis/disaggregation 

of data; replaced spreadsheet analysis. 

• Program changes driven by student achievement in 

relation to the academic standards and ESLRs. 

• PLCs put in place/professional development. 

• Support structures added: tutoring, in-person and 

online; writing course; algebra support course. 

• Common high school core subject finals. 

Evidence 

• Textbooks in resource 

center 

• Learning management 

systems 

• Elluminate (possible to 

view an archived session) 

(WIGS 2009-2010) 


• PLC agendas and work 

• Student tutoring schedule 

• Writing course material 

• Algebra support materials 

• Department finals 



ASSESSMENT AREAS OF STRENGTH 

• The board and other stakeholders use student achievement to 

drive the allocation of resources and program changes. 

• Administrators and staff use assessment information to 

develop goals for curricular and professional development. 

• The school is moving toward common assessments, beginning 

with core subject finals at the high school level and benchmarks 

in K-8. 

• PLCs are in place to help with student progress monitoring; 

monitoring is at an individual, group, and program level. 

• Numerous strategies are used for student assessment and to 

modify instruction. 

• Teachers are working in PLCs, departments, and curriculum 

teams to discuss how to use assessment findings to better effect 

instruction so all students benefit from the group wisdom. 

• A wide-variety of student performance data is gathered. This 

includes both summative and formative data. 

• DataDirector allows staff members to analyze student data. 

• JCS has put in place, and allowed the time for, PLCs. Part of 

the role of the PLC groups is: 1) disaggregation, analysis and 

reporting on student data, 2) curricular development based 

on assessment data, and 3) professional development. 

ASSESSMENT AREAS OF GROWTH 

• Provide continual education, including group time for 

collaboration, as teachers are learning to use the recently 

adopted systems (e.g., DataDirector) effectively. 

• Add further common assessments at all grade levels to 

ensure all students are being served and are meeting state 

academic standards and school ESLRs. 

• Build teacher comfort level/ability to examine student data. 

• Find alternative ways to meet to expand the time spent in 

groups for analysis: teachers need time to continue to discuss 

how to use assessment findings when modifying curriculum 

and instruction. Also under discussion is how to delve deeper 

into subjects, while still understanding that there is a body of 

standards that need to be mastered within a limited time 

period. Conversely, for students moving through the standards 

quickly, there is much room for enrichment within the 

grade level work that can lead to a deeper understanding of 

the subject matter. 



Findings 

E. SCHOOL CULTURE AND SUPPORT FOR 

STUDENT PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC GROWTH 

E1. To what extent does the school leadership employ 

a wide range of strategies to encourage parental and 

community involvement, especially with the teaching/ 

learning process? 

SUMMARY 

• JCS implements a variety of strategies to encourage regular 

parental and community involvement. 

• Staff communicates regularly with parents through Teacher 

Ease, JCS Online, email, phone, and school website. 

• JCS encourages local community involvement through 

partnerships in academic award programs. 

• JCS ensures that stakeholders understand student achievement 

of academic standards and communicates about the 

ESLRs through both the curricular/co-curricular programs. 

• School leadership communicates and collaborates with 

stakeholders to enrich the learning process. 

Evidence 

RANGE OF S TRATEGIES EMPLOYED FOR PARENT/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 

• JCS encourages parental involvement by providing 

opportunities such as serving on the board or the 

advisory council, volunteering, day and evening 

workshops and meetings, family meetings, parent-toparent 

connections, and co-curricular activities. 

• Assistant directors (home study) and coordinators 

(academies) lead new family orientation meetings. 

• Students and parents work with facilitators or 

coordinators in designing personal learning plans. 

• Parent-teachers provide daily education oversight. 

• Events are hosted that provide opportunities to 

review curriculum or learn teaching strategies. 

• Parents are encouraged to attend the joint 

professional development session at staff forums. 

• Parent wikis provide curriculum tips and resources. 

• Website includes discussion forums and home 

study tools such as the JCS Organizer. 

• Families, especially in the K-8 program, are invited 

to participate in home study support groups. 

• Frequent field trips are offered with a strong 

curriculum focus including pre-/post-trip study. 

• Parent surveys 

• Events 

• Back to School nights 

• Curriculum Expo 

• Quarterly meetings 

• Orientation meetings 

• Career/College Days 

• Parent/curriculum wikis 

• Personalized learning plans 


• K-8 support meetings 

• Parent education program 

• Field trip/eClub calendars 

• Donations/fundraising 

• Service learning projects 

• Participation: 

• Governing Board 

• Advisory Council 

• JCS Foundation 

• PTOs 

• Volunteer hours 

Chapter 4: Self-Study Findings: School Culture and Student Support 


• The school, academies, and facilitators communicate 

with parents in a variety of ways from mailings and e- 

mails to the website and management systems. 

• Part of each family meeting is devoted to sharing 

information about student/family opportunities 

and student achievement/academic standards. 

• Every specialist provides a Monday morning e-mail 

outlining key course announcements. 

• In the home study program, facilitators are in 

frequent contact (phone/e-mail) with families. 

• JCS makes effective use of community resources. 

• Students in all three counties access education and 

services available through the community college 

and library systems and participate in Work 

Experience Education (WEE) in two counties. 

• The school partners with libraries and churches in 

various communities and uses these sites for student 

meetings, centers, academies or testing sites. 

• The school provides access to over 650 community 

vendor courses. Services include everything from 

art/music instruction to aquatics and tutoring. 

• Other community resource connections include 

extensions to the academic program such as ROP, 

UCSD/USD programs for middle schoolers, service 

learning, museums, theaters, research facilities, 

non-profit organizations (SDSA, Civil Air Patrol) and 

foundations. 

• JCS Online/Teacher Ease 


• Direct mailings 

• E-mails/phone calls 

• Facilitator contact log 

• Flyers/newsletters 

• Parent handbook 

• Family meetings 

• In Danger of Failing letters 

• CAHSEE letters/meetings 

• Vendor Course Instruction 

• Community college 

enrollment/college visits 

• Space sharing with nonprofit 

organizations 

• Guest speakers 

• Home school co-ops 

• Programs such as Pizza 

Hut’s “Book It” 

• Community/government 

services (SPED, awards) 

• Work Experience 

Education/internships 

• Volunteer San Diego 

• Grant opportunities 



E2. a) To what extent is the school a safe, clean, and 

orderly place that nurtures learning? b) To what extent 

is the culture of the school characterized by trust, 

professionalism, high expectations for all students, and 

a focus on continuous school improvement? 

SUMMARY 

• The JCS Safety Plan, including a behavior policy, was updated in 

2008-09 and is built on a model that has worked well for other 

independent study schools with satellite centers. (WIGS 09-10) 

• All site facilities are leased, clean, and up to code; custodial 

services are on a contract basis. 

• JCS renovates sites and provides policies and resources to 

ensure safe, clean, and orderly premises that nurture learning. 

• Policies are in place for expected student achievement and 

behaviors with clear expectations for student performance. 

• JCS staff demonstrates a caring concern for all students that 

honors individual differences and is conducive to learning. 

• JCS has an atmosphere of trust, respect and professionalism. 

Findings 

SAFE, C LEAN AND ORDERLY E NVIRONMENT 

• Safety regulations are in place and followed. 

• Buildings are cleaned on a regular basis. 

• Supplies and needed resources are stocked. 

• Safety items are maintained and labeled. 

• Required records and certifications are on file. 

• School safety plan is updated as needed. 

• Policies relating to school safety and adult and student 

behavior(s) are in place. 

• School beautification efforts in place at many sites. 

• Implementation of comprehensive site behavior plan. 

Evidence 

• Adult certification/training 

• Sexual harassment 

• Mandatory reporting 

• Emergency procedures 

• CPR/First Aid 

• Fingerprint clearance 

• Fire drill records, emergency 

procedures and discipline 

posters, equipment 

• Policies/surveys 

HIGH E XPECTATIONS/CONCERN/TRUST, RESPECT AND PROFESSIONALISM 

• Small intimate campus settings (meeting center, 

learning centers, academies) promote mutually 

respectful interactions (staff/students, peers). 

• Home study families, whenever possible, are matched 

with an EF in terms of geography, expertise in the 

educational approach of the family’s choice (Classical, 

Waldorf, portfolio, etc.), and support needs. 

• Personalized attention to student goal setting, design 

of the learning path and curriculum choices. 

• Site visits 


• Highly qualified teachers 

• Care taken in educational 

facilitator assignment 

• Three-tiered high school 

program and student/ 

parent curriculum choices 

• Personalized learning plans 



• Support from school counselors for academic planning; 

individual student meetings or individual family 

meetings held at a convenient location. 

• High school academies promote “a-g” courses. 

• School focuses on continuous improvement with high 

staff expectations, proactive program modifications, 

collaborative teams, new teacher support (BTSA), and 

administrative coaching. 

• Support classes, intervention strategies, service 

providers, and tutoring are widely available. 

• Teachers promote social development and awareness 

of a healthy, productive lifestyle, and habits that will 

lead to success. 

• Staff members show a genuine concern and high 

expectations for each student and demonstrate this in 

a myriad of ways: 

• Attendance at non-school related student 

performances. 

• Locating vendors/activities/services that fit with a 

student’s needs and goals. 

• Providing familial support in both academic and 

non-academic needs. 

• Helping families structure a home environment 

conducive to learning. 

• Celebrating student successes. 

• Seeking ways to alleviate academic distracters. 

• Having an arsenal of teaching strategies readily 

available to provide to students/families. 

• Helping students to schedule time, utilize 

organizational tools, and academic organizers. 

• Serving as club advisor or coach. 

• Building teams of families who support each other. 

• Mentoring of peers, parents, or students. 

• Teaching about and enforcing academic honesty. 

• Safety Net/SN tutoring 

• High school counselors 

• Counseling resources 

• College/career counseling 

• COIN3 

• Student dress code 

• Staff dress code 

• Strike reports 

• Enrichment clubs (HS/AC) 

• Sports programs 

• Prom (HS/AC) 

• Yearbooks 

Survey Responses 

• “Is your experience as a 

JCS student a positive 

one?” 95.8% of students 

responded yes. 

• “Are you learning the skills 

you need to be successful?” 

91.4% of students 

responded yes. 

• 97% of home study 

students responded that 

they either strongly agree 

or agree that they are 

satisfied with the relationship 

they have with their 

educational facilitator. 

• Student perceptions 

regarding their teachers 

indicate that the majority 

of students feel respected, 

cared for, and listened to 

by their teachers and are 

learning the skills needed 

to be successful. 



Findings 

E3. To what extent do all students receive appropriate 

support along with an individualized learning plan to 

help ensure academic success? 

E4. To what extent do students have access to a system 

of personal support services, activities and 

opportunities at the school and within the community? 

SUMMARY 

• JCS provides student services, including referral services, to 

support students in areas such as health, career, personal 

counseling and academic assistance. 

• JCS implements strategies to ensure a direct connection 

between academic standards/ESLRs and allocation of 

resources to student support services, such as counseling or 

advisory services, articulation services, psychological and 

health services or other referral services. 

• JCS uses strategies to develop personalized learning and 

alternative instructional options which allow access to and 

progress in a rigorous standards-based program. 

• The service learning program regularly links curricular and 

co-curricular activities to the academic standards and ESLRs 

through programs such as the service learning program. 

• JCS has an effective process for regularly evaluating the level 

of student involvement in curricular and co-curricular 

activities and student use of support services. 

• JCS is aware of the student view of student support services 

through such approaches as student meetings and dialoging 

with student representatives of the school population. 

Evidence 

STUDENT SUPPORT/INDIVIDUALIZED LEARNING PLAN 

• All students develop a learning plan that is revisited • Facilitator and high school 

and revised regularly; all high school four-year plans academy records/forms 

are reviewed annually by the academic counselor(s) • Master agreements 

(home study/site). 

• Program visits 

• Small school culture allows nurturing and opportunities 

for positive adult and student interactions. 

• English-language support is available through: 

• Educational facilitator with facility in language. 

• CompassLearning Odyssey ELL lessons for 

elementary and secondary students. 

• Resources purchased with educational units (EUs). 

• Vendor Course Instruction using VCI funds. 

• School profile data 

• Vendor list 

• Resource list 

• JCS has less than twenty 

students that require 

English-language services 



• Curriculum/Course Offerings 

• Most courses at JCS provide for scaffolding or custom 

course designs to meet the course objectives. 

o Students repeating a course, for example, are 

not required to use the same curriculum or 

course outline the second time in the course. 

o Facilitators/coordinators may design a custom 

course for a student’s elective interests. 

o Facilitators may provide multiple sources of 

instruction/curriculum for the same course. 

For example, a student working on fractions 

might have a “Key to Fractions” resource 

book and a standards-based textbook. 

• Each learning plan is designed to meet standards and 

ESLRs with curriculum and instructional options 

selected by the teacher/facilitator and parent/student 

to ensure equal access to the curriculum. 

• Steps are taken to ensure connections are made 

between academic standards/ESLRs and allocation of 

resources to student support services such as the 

three-tiered response to intervention. Educational 

units (EUs) or school support or contract services are 

allocated as needed. 

• As identified, alternative instructional options which 

allow access to and progress in a rigorous standardsbased 

program are implemented. The most current 

examples are the implementation of the INSITE program 

(primarily at-risk students) and the foundational 

level of courses for non-diploma bound students. 

• Direct and swift referral and intervention processes 

are in place to ensure student success. 

• The school does not identify nor provide GATE services; 

all students are provided an academic environment 

with enrichment activities built into a student’s 

learning plan. This may include outside activities such 

as summer programs for gifted youth. 

• Student support services are offered in one-to-one or 

small group sessions ideally with the parent in close 

proximity; therefore opportunities frequently exist to 

gain direct input about the student’s or parent’s 

attitude about support services. Academy programs 

also talk to parents at the beginning or end of the day. 

• Student’s and parent’s views about support services 

are covered thoroughly at monthly family meetings. 

• Student surveys and grad questionnaires provide 

additional input about student support services. 

• Examples of Course 

Differentiation Options: 

• 1 or 2 classes at a time 

• Summer school, CHSPE 

or GED prep, ROP, VCI, 

or CC classes 

• K-8 individualized 

• Course pace or 2-year 

or 2-semester course 

• Curriculum choice(s) 

• Modified assignments 

• Ancillary programs: CLO, 

COIN3 Life Lessons 

• Concern reports 

• Safety Net/SST records 

• Intervention records 

• IEPs/504/SPED records 

• Four-level high school 

program (CP, NCP, basic, 

foundational) 

• INSITE/AC/HS 

• Student resource tracking 

records (EUs) 

• Resource center inventory 


• Customized RW courses 

• CAHSEE support classes, 

community college classes, 

ROP, Work Experience, 

Safety Net Tutoring, 

enrichment classes 

• School profile data 

• Master agreement 

• Student interviews 

• Student representative on 

JCS Advisory Council 

• ASB at academies 

• Facilitator/advisor and 

coordinator interviews 

• Counselor interviews 

• 9-12 electronic survey 

• Grad survey 



ACCESS TO P ERSONAL S UPPORT SERVICES, A CTIVITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

• Service support categories for students include: 

• College/career: planning, financial aid, testing 

• Academic planning: learning plans, four-year plans 

• Academic support: counseling, services, testing 

• Personal counseling: support, referrals 

• Special education: services, testing, referrals 

• Community Services and Other Agency Referrals: 

intervention services, agency services, counseling, 

hospitalization, support, referrals 

• JCS implements strategies to link curricular and cocurricular 

activities to the standards and ESLRs. 

• All courses are created using academic standards 

or ESLRs as a guide; any resource materials 

purchased (EMRs) must correlate to standards. 

• Most field trips are academic in nature and align 

with curriculum. Exceptions would be things like 

Park Day, but even there time is set aside to hold 

group parent meetings where the objective might 

be to model how to use a particular piece of 

curriculum or an instructional strategy. 

• Most clubs, such as math, science and eClubs, are 

coordinated with standard curriculum objectives, 

but also allow students to pursue areas of passion. 

• All lessons in ReportWriter are standards based. 

• Service learning projects have a required, wellarticulated 

curriculum component. 

• Presentations and projects at academies connect 

to standards. 

• All co-curricular activities using VCI funds must 

demonstrate correlation to frameworks or ESLRs 

before funds are dispersed. 

• JCS has no schoolwide extra-curricular activities, 

outside of an intramural sports program. 

• Recommendations/gaps identified from surveys are 

discussed in leadership teams and advisory council 

and programs and procedures are adjusted based on 

input/confirmation of perceptions with other data. 

Overall, parents feel the school is responsive to needs. 

• Some examples of changes initiated by parent and 

student input are types of academy classes offered, 

the range of academies established, learning center 

class offerings, expansion of the sports program, 

implementation of a ninth grade writing class, and a 

focus on algebra preparedness. 

• College/career materials, 

centers, event schedules, 

COIN3, website 

• Staff interviews (advisors, 

counselors, facilitators, 

SPED, Safety Net) 

• Referral list/records 

• Handbooks/packets 

• Required health course 

• SP student records 

• No Purchase Chart 

• Field trip guidelines for K-8 

• eClub guidelines (K-8) 

• Link to standards on 

master agreements 

• Mini-grant stipulations for 

schoolwide or service 

learning grants 

• Site-based informal and 

formal guidelines 

• Facilitators, advisors, and 

coordinators track and 

monitor all school-related 

co-curricular activities 

• Work experience portfolios 

• Parent questionnaire 

• Parent interviews 



SCHOOL CULTURE AREAS OF STRENGTH 

• Staff recognized by all stakeholders for the quality of teaching 

and concern for students and families. 

• Personalized learning plans are developed collaboratively. 

• Small campuses provide direct home/school connections. 

• A variety of support services are available for all students. 

• Flexible units of time enable interdisciplinary project-based 

teaching and learning and developmentally appropriate 

practices for supporting the whole child (e.g., length of instructional 

blocks, sequence of learning activities, physical and 

emotional safety, engagement with school and community). 

• JCS continues to focus on improving programs and meeting 

the needs of all students. 

• Close partnerships with parents and families encourage 

parents to invest time into their child’s education. 

• Educational facilitators are in close contact with their 

assistant director and, at high school, the academic counselor 

so the entire academic team is in frequent contact regarding 

students and student support. (More than 80% of an assistant 

director’s e-mail is directly student related.) 

• JCS values the input of all parents as stakeholders and strives 

to maintain and grow a number of programs to promote 

parental involvement. 

SCHOOL CULTURE AREAS OF GROWTH 

• Improve communication between vendor course instructors 

and educational facilitators. 

• Implement a more cohesive parent-to-parent mentor system 

and increase parent professional development opportunities. 

• Increase use of community resources, community business 

partners, and develop internship programs to support students. 

• Continue to share work products and information about school 

programs with stakeholders to increase awareness; seek ways to 

gather more formal and informal feedback from stakeholders. 

• Provide appropriate technology infrastructure and tools that 

support student acquisition of 21st century skills. 

• Continue to explore ways to engage and support all students 

with additional career and technical options. 

• Ensure that educational facilitators are knowledgeable about 

support services available to students through the school and 

the community. 



CHAPTER V: 

SCHOOLWIDE ACTION PLAN 

Chapter 5: Schoolwide Action Plan 


Chapter 5: Schoolwide Action Plan 


SCHOOLWIDE ACTION PLAN 

Action Plan Item #1 

Area of Focus: Expand expository writing strategies across the curriculum. 

Rationale: 

Supporting Data: 

ESLRs Addressed: 

Within the context of core knowledge instruction, students must also learn the essential skills for success in today’s world, 

such as critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration. 

Self-study groups found that although “writing” was at least minimally included in each core content area, writing was not 

used as a tool to increase the understanding of core content concepts, nor was the focus on a carefully crafted, clear, central 

presentation of ideas, examples or definitions and reflective of the writer's underlying understanding of the topic. 

Learning and Innovation Skills; Information, Media and Technology Skills; Life and Career Skills 

Action Steps Timeline Person(s) 

Responsible 

• Establish a Writing Across the 

Curriculum (WATC) team to 

guide development work 

• Develop ICT Literacy Maps in 

core content areas that 

include core content knowledge, 

21st century themes, 

and life and career skills using 

ICT and learning/innovation 

skills as the mechanisms to 

guide student writing projects 

Summer/Fall 

2010• 

Fall 2010• 

• Directors/ADs 

• Writing 

teacher(s) 

• DCs/CT Leads 

• DCs/CT Leads 

• Teachers 

• PLCs 

• ADs 

Resources Assessment Report of 

Progress 

• Content area and 

writing expertise 

• Model curriculum 

maps (ELA, M, SS, S) 

• ESLRs 

• Specialists/DCs/CTs 

• Materials support 

• Content area frameworks 

and standards 

• 21st century 

organization 

resources 

• Implementation of WATC 

plan with observable 

improvement in student 

writing 

• ICT Literacy Maps include 

all ESLRs; writing assignments 

evident in curriculum 

maps; “writing” context 

expanded to include 

discussion forums, multimedia 

scripts, and other 

21st century formats 

• WATC bimonthly 

progress report 

• DCs/CTs/AD 

reports 

• PLCs and ELT 

monthly 

progress reports 

Chapter 5: Schoolwide Action Plan: Action Plan #1 


Action Plan Item #1 Continued 


Responsible 

• Teach writing skills in the 

context of core subjects and 

interdisciplinary themes; use 

ICT Literacy Maps as content 

and project guide 

• Increase student, teacher, 

and parent-teacher conversations 

about student writing 

• Calibrate interdisciplinary 

staff on scoring and evaluating 

student writing 

• Provide training and practice 

in creating effective rubrics 

• Post rubrics, exemplars and 

sample scored student work 

for at least one writing project 

in each core subject 

• Provide access to writing 

specialists for students, 

teachers, and parents 

Spring 2011• 

Winter 2010• 

Fall 2010; 

annually 

thereafter 

Summer/Fall 

2010• 


Spring 2010• 

• DCs/CTs 

• PLCs 

• ADs 

• DCs/CTs 

• PLCs 

• ADs 

• Writing 

teacher(s) 

• ADs 

• PLCs 

• DCs/CTs 

• PLCs 

• ADs 

• DCs 

• Specialists 


Progress 

• Curriculum maps 

• Sample writing 

strategies/lessons 

• Writing teachers 

and ELA teams 

• Training about how 

to analyze student 

work 

• Models of successful 

implementations in 

other schools 

• Research-based 

examples 

• PLCs 

• Writing teachers 

• English teachers 


• Ongoing review of student 

work by individual 

teachers and collaboratively 

in content area 

PLCs 

• Stakeholder surveys 

• Observations/reflections 

• Anecdotal records 

• Training records 

• Peer, AD, student and 

parent feedback 

• Work analysis 

• Parent feedback 

• Stakeholder feedback 

• AD observation 


monthly progress 

reports 



reports 

• ELT monthly 






reports 






Area of Focus: Refine, design, implement and assess instructional and curricular strategies to enable all students to master algebra. 

Rationale: 



Many students reach middle (or even high) school without the proper preparation for (or appreciation of) algebraic 

thinking which frequently curtails success in algebra. Research tells us that mathematics is the content area where 

teachers (and parent-teachers) report they have the least expertise. Secondly, math is not placed as a high priority 

by most parents. 

Self-study findings indicate a need to improve student achievement in mathematics to ensure students are 

achieving up to and beyond algebra. State assessment data (CSTs/CAHSEE), coursework, and review of student 

work show that most students are struggling to master the math standards. 



Responsible 

• K-8 (algebra) math curriculum 

that offers early, mid- and 

advanced-math skill development 

• Math modules that can be 

incorporated into current 

curriculum to fill alignment 

gaps between different 

curricula and the standards 

• Teacher and parent-teacher 

teaching strategies to promote 

algebraic thinking 




• Math CT 

• K-8 AD 

• 9-12 AD 

• Math CT 

• K-8 EFs 

• K-8 AD 

• DCs 


• DCs/CTs 



Progress 

• Math department chair and 

math curriculum team lead 

• STAR exemplars 

• Power standards 

• Model instruction modules 

include vocabulary concepts, 

student tasks, 

standards covered, 

instructional ideas, and pre- 

/post- assessments 

• Current research 

• Published math strategies 

• Math ICT Literacy Map 

• Curriculum 

review report 

• K-12 articulation 

records 

• Release of at 

least one 

module per 

grade level per 

year 

• Math wiki 

postings 

• Math PLC report 

• AD report to ELT 











Responsible 

• Screening and diagnostic 

assessments to place students 

and monitor progress 

• Additional intervention 

strategies that address 

various learning styles 

• Cross-curricular lessons with 

math, science, and/or writing 

focus 

• Remediation materials to 

address student deficits 

• Focused professional 

development to increase 

teacher and parent-teacher 

content knowledge and 

instructional strategies 





Ongoing 

• Math DC/CT 

• Math PLCs 


• Math PLCs 

• DC/CT/PLCs 

• ADs 



• Math PLCs 


• Math PLCs 


Progress 

• 9-12 placement 

tests; course 

sequencing paths & 

recommendations 

• Successful strategies 

at other schools 


• COE workshops 

• Existing models 

• ESLRs 


• CLO RtI 

• SPED 

• Tutoring teachers 

• Deconstructed 

standards 

• Item-based data 

analysis 

• Math specialists 

• Math Now Initiative 

• Reaching for Common 

Ground in K-12 

Math Education 


• Assessment results in 

DataDirector 

• Correlation data 

• Benchmarks and finals 

• Student work analysis 

• Data analyses (DD) 

• Parent/student surveys 

• Work analysis 

• PLC Review 

• Remediation flowchart 

• Student progress data 

• Course/tutoring sign-ups 

• Math Intervention Form 

• Peer, AD, and parent 

feedback 

• AD reflections 

• Math PLCs report 



• Math PLCs 

• Department 

minutes 

• Semester reports 

• Department 

minutes 

• PLC reports 










Area of Focus: Refine, design and implement comprehensive support strategies for all students. 

Rationale: 



Every student must learn the skills needed to create and manage his/her progress in an age-appropriate personal 

learning plan that includes his/her goals for content knowledge and skill acquisition inside and outside of school. 

The number of students scoring at Proficient/Advanced levels at JCS diminishes as students progress from the lower 

grades through high school. 



Responsible 

• Identify students needing 

support 

• Assess student needs and offer/expand 

quality elective 

courses, programs, or referrals 

that meet these needs. Initial 

focus areas include: 

o CC/ROP/S-L 

o GED 

o Internships/partnerships 

o Virtual M.S. academy 

• Expansion/exploratory areas: 

o Partnership programs and 

partnership funding 

o Career technical education 

program(s) 

o Community-based programs 

Ongoing 


Stages of implementation 

and 

expansion will 

be spread over 

4-6 years 

• All staff 

• Counselors 

• SN/SPED 

• PLCs 

• ADs 

• Ad hoc teams 


• Tech Team 

• Tech 

Committee 

• Online learning 

team 

• CTE team 


Progress 

• Student Profile Reports 

• Safety Net Concern list 

• Assessment/anecdotal data 

• Student surveys 

• Elective choices 

• Stakeholder input 

• Course catalog cross referenced 

to custom courses 

• 21st century framework 

• Service learning networks 

• Existing county, regional and 

state CTE resources 

• Research/visits/training 

• Virtual ed communities 

• Community and business 

resources 

• Higher education, non-profit 

and community resources 

• ELT review 

• Cabinet review 

• Stakeholder 

and program 

leads feedback 

• Learning plans 

• Program counts 

Note: Determine 

and apply success 

metrics for each 

program or focus 

area before expanding 

to other 

grade spans: 

ELEM/M.S./H.S. 

• Counseling and 

ELT reports 

• AD report to ELT 

• Tech team 

minutes/reports 



• • • • • 



Responsible 

• Continue to review data and 

assessment results to identify 

programmatic areas of success 

and ongoing needs 

• Identify and measure skills and 

work habits needed for success 

in academic classes and promote 

whole-child achievement 

using ESLRs and 21st century 

skills framework as a baseline 

• Develop student-monitored 

learning plans and additional 

levels of support for SMART 

goal setting and monitoring 

• Review and update technology 

plan to include more techenabled 

student supports 

• Increase the use of interdisciplinary 

lessons and projectbased 

learning into curriculum 

• Provide more opportunities for 

authentic online learning 

• Increase use of synchronous 

and asynchronous supports 

• Increase # of students meeting 

UC/CSU “a-g” requirements 

Ongoing 


• Cabinet 

• ELT 

• PLCs 

• All staff 


• ELT 

• SPED 

• SN tutors 

Resources Assessment Report of Progress 

• DataDirector 

• Surveys 

• Staff reflections 


• 21st Century Framework 

• Models of successful 

implementations in 

other schools 

Fall 2010• • Directors/ADs • Counselors 

• ESLRs/standards 

• Child-centered learning 

research/supports 


Ongoing 


• Tech leads, 

team, and 

committee 

• DCs/CTs 

• PLCs 

• ELT/staff 


• California Learning 

Resource Network 

(CLRN) 


• 21st Century 

Frameworks 



• Data/DD/correlation 

data/enrollments 

• Feedback loops 

• ESLR matrix 

• Differentiated 

instruction 

strategies 

• Whole Child 

Assessment 

• Cabinet and AC 

evaluation 

• Goal setting 

matrix 

• Cabinet review 

• Updated tech 

plan 

• Tech team 

evaluation 

• AD reflections 

• Minimum + 2% 

annual increase 

• Cabinet and ELT 


reports 

• Correlation data 

• ELT monthly progress 

reports 


reports 

• Tech and ELT monthly 


• PLCs monthly reports 


reports 

• Tech teams monthly 


• ELT semester progress 

reports 

Chapter 5: Schoolwide Action Plan #3 




Responsible 

• Communicate, articulate and 

share best practices among 

all JCS programs/departments 

• Increase program alignment, 

coordination, & expectations 

• Publicize availability of support 

structure and resources 

• Train teachers in understanding 

and implementing 

IEPs and Section 504 Plans 

• Train staff in strategies for 

interdisciplinary support of 

literacy/numeracy 

• Train staff in strategies for 

collaboration around 

evaluation of student work 

• Train teachers how to 

connect content to career 

applications 

• Train staff in using S-L 

projects and strategies to 

meet content standards 


• Cabinet 

• ELT 

• Departments 

• Staff 

Resources Assessment Report of Progress 

• WASC focus groups 

• Best practices work 

• Program matrix 

• APLUS+ 

• CCSA 

Fall 2009• • SPED AD • Special Education 

Department 

Fall 2010• • ADs • Current research and 

methodology 

Spring 2009• • ADs • Current research and 

methodology 

Fall 2011• 

Fall 2008• 


• CTE team 

• ADs 

• S-L 

Coordinator 

• Career tech resources 


• CTE research 

• Serve and Learn 

America 

• S-L regional/state 

networks 

• Volunteer San Diego 

• Cabinet and AC 

evaluation 

• Stakeholder 

feedback 

• Tangible and 

intangible 

results 

• Dir. of Ed. 

• SPED Dept. 

• Feedback 


• ELT 

• Feedback 


• ELT 

• Feedback 



• Feedback 


• ELT 

• S-L grant evaluator 

and metrics 

used in grant 


reports 

• June forum 

• ELT Monthly Progress 

Reports 

• PLCs and ELT Monthly 

Progress Reports 

• AD Reports 

• Counselor/ADs 


• S-L Coordinator 

Progress Report 



• Train academic teams to be 

effective users and 

constructors of rubrics 

• Continue to build a datadriven 

PLC culture where staff 

development and professional 

growth stems from the 

work of the team and is 

responsive to teachers’ needs 

Spring 2009• • ADs • Current research and 

methodology 

• Web resources 

Fall 2009• • Staff • Current research and 

methodology 


• ELT 

• Feedback 


• ELT 

• Cabinet 

• Feedback loops 

• Tech Team and ADs 


• PLCs June 

Presentations 

• ELT Monthly Progress 

Reports 

Chapter 5: Schoolwide Action Plan #3 


APPENDIX 

Appendix 


APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS 

A. Perception Data ................................................................................................... 105 

B. Schoolwide Goals 2009‐10 ................................................................................. 108 

C. Schoolwide Goals 2008‐09 ................................................................................ 109 

D. Strategic Plan Summary 2010‐2014 ..................................................................... 110 

E. Supplementary Profile Data ................................................................................ 111 

Enrollment Patterns ...................................................................................................................... 111 

Primary Language......................................................................................................................... 112 

Academy Enrollment by Site ....................................................................................................... 112 

Special Education Services ........................................................................................................... 112 

English Learners ........................................................................................................................... 112 

Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch ................................................................................. 112 

Parent Education .......................................................................................................................... 113 

School Finances/Expenditure Distribution ................................................................................ 113 

Schoolwide, Program and County APIs ...................................................................................... 113 

STAR Participation Rate .............................................................................................................. 114 

STAR Math Proficiency ................................................................................................................ 114 

Algebra I ........................................................................................................................................ 114 

Course Grades ............................................................................................................................... 115 

CAHSEE English‐language Arts (ELA)/Math (by Graduating Class) ........................................ 116 

CAHSEE ELA/Math Census ......................................................................................................... 117 

CAHSEE Three‐Year Comparisos ................................................................................................ 118 

Ninth Grade Reading ................................................................................................................... 118 

AP Tests ........................................................................................................................................ 118 

Grades Matched to CAHSEE Pass Rates ..................................................................................... 119 

Enrollment in CP Classes ............................................................................................................ 120 

Number of Students Meeting University of California a‐g Requirements .............................. 120 

Postsecondary Plans .................................................................................................................... 120 

SAT Reasoning Tests .................................................................................................................... 121 

PSAT .............................................................................................................................................. 121 

EAP ................................................................................................................................................ 121 

AYP Percent At or Above Proficient ........................................................................................... 122 

CELDT ........................................................................................................................................... 123 

STAR ELA Reporting Clusters .....................................................................................................124 

STAR Scores .................................................................................................................................. 125 

F. SARC ..................................................................................................................... 133 

G. CBEDS Information Form .................................................................................. 143 

H. School Budget ...................................................................................................... 144 

I. Four‐year Graduation Plan ................................................................................. 148 

J. Curriculum Order Forms (Standards‐based Texts) .......................................... 150 

K. Acronyms ............................................................................................................. 159 

L. JCS Terminology .................................................................................................. 161 

M. Key Evidence List by Category ........................................................................... 165 

Appendix 


A. PERCEPTION DATA 

Each year students, parents and staff are surveyed to gather input on curriculum, program 

effectiveness, and satisfaction with the school as a whole. Prior to 2008-2009, student and 

parent surveys were mailed to households, and staff participated in an online survey. In 

line with our focus on the use of technology, the 2008-2009 school year student and parent 

surveys were completed using SurveyMonkey. The link to the student survey was sent 

to all home study students in grades 9-12, and academy students in grades 9-12. All parents 

were provided with the link, as well as the option to complete the survey on paper to give 

flexibility to families without computers. At the academies, the majority of the students 

completed the surveys onsite in the computer lab. Providing access to the survey for home 

study students produced an increase of approximately 25% in the number of responses 

over the previous method of mailing paper surveys and having students return them to 

the main office. 

Data from surveys is reviewed by the Cabinet, Board, and the Educational Leadership Team. 

Survey results are shared with staff via the Executive Director’s weekly update, and with 

parents through the Executive Director’s biannual letter home to families. Additionally, 

each academy site conducts surveys for their specific academy site. 

Efforts are made to ensure that suggestions and perceptions from all surveys are taken 

very seriously. Recommendations and gaps identified are discussed, and programs and 

procedures are adjusted based on input and confirmation of perceptions with other school 

data. Some examples of changes initiated by parent and student input are types of 

academy classes offered, the range of academies established, learning center class 

offerings, expansion of the sports program, implementation of a 9 th grade writing class, 

and a focus on Algebra preparedness. 

In the 2008-2009 spring student survey, 166 students out of 766 students in grades 9-12 

completed our first online SurveyMonkey Student Survey. Of those completing the survey, 

42.5% were enrolled in home study, 55.7% Academy and 1.8% home study students 

enrolled in the portfolio option. 

The overall trend in JCS surveys has consistently indicated that staff, parents and students 

are pleased with the education students are receiving at JCS and that students are being 

educated in a manner that meets expectations and allows for personalization and student 

success. Below is a small sample of findings from surveys. 

When asked “Is your experience as a JCS student a positive one, 95.8% of student 

responded yes. Comments on “What can we do to improve your experience?” indicated no 

strong theme, but included a smattering of requests for more fieldtrips, sports, special 

events, and a wider class option list. 

Appendix 


As indicated on the 

chart, the majority of 

students, responding, 

35.4%, plan on attending 

a 4‐year college, 

followed equally, 

22.6%, by students who 

plan to attend a community 

college and 

those who plan to 

attend a community 

college and then transfer 

to a 4‐year college. 

Chart 5: Post‐graduation Plans 

What is your goal after high school? 

1% 

8% 

5% 

23% 

21% 

7% 

35% 

Workforce 1.2% 

Community College 22.6% 

4‐year College 35.4% 

Vocational Training 6.7% 

Community College & Transfer 

to 4‐year College 21.3% 

Military 4.9% 

Other 7.9% 

91.4% of students responding feel that their educational program is preparing them for 

their future and that they are learning the skills needed to be successful. Student 

comments include positive indicators “The skills I am learning are actually ones that I 

wouldn't acquire in public high school. In public high school, it is more confusing to learn 

things because there is limited help from teachers, or they don't teach the concepts in a 

way that is easy to understand. When I can learn it on my own, it comes much easier 

because I'm teaching myself, and I learn things in a more adult way that prepares me for 

college.” There were some indicators that students not planning on attending a 4‐year 

college or community college desire more support in the area of career/tech ed. 

HOME STUDY STUDENTS 

Given the importance of the EF support of students, questions were asked regarding this 

relationship and frequency and quality of contact. 

45.2% of students indicated that they see their EF weekly, followed by 39.5% who see their 

EF at least once a month. This is in alignment with expectations of frequency of student 

meetings, which are required once every twenty days, and indicates that EFs are meeting 

more frequently with students than the minimum required. 

In 2008‐2009, 97% of home study students responded that they either strongly agree or 

agree that they are satisfied with the relationship they have with their Educational 

Facilitator, with 92.5% of students indicating that they feel comfortable contacting their 

EF during the month outside of scheduled meeting time. This is an improvement over 

previous years’ responses, although the goal is 100%. Steps are being taken to address the 

concerns of the 7.5% who were not satisfied. Additionally, 95.1% indicate that their EF 

knows them fairly well, very well or extremely well. 

Appendix 


Chart 6: Satisfaction with EF 

I am satisfied with the relationship that I have with my educational facilitator? 

Specific questions 

were included to 

100 

90 

gain information 

90 

on the high school 

80 

specialist program. 

70 

67 

2007-2008 student 

60 

and parent surveys 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

2 3 

indicated that the 

program had a 

rocky start, with 

difficulties with 

the online learning 

management system, 

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 

student spec- 

ialist contact, and a 

general lack of understanding around the purpose of the specialists’ purpose in the high 

school home study program. 2008-2009 survey data indicates that many of these issues have 

been resolved with additional training of students on use of the program, and the program 

is now meeting the needs of the students and facilitating learning and communication with 

NCLB compliant subject-area specialists. 

EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE 

When asked how studies at JCS compare to previous learning experiences, 43.8% of 

students responded JCS is more motivating. Approximately equal numbers view work at 

JCS as easier, 17.3%, or harder, 19.8%, than their previous experience. Student perceptions 

regarding their teachers indicate that the majority of students feel respected, cared for, 

and listened to by their teachers. 

STAFF SURVEYS 

Staff is generally presented with surveys in fall and spring of each year. These surveys provide 

staff the opportunity to address procedures, concerns and overall operation of the 

school and the educational process. The data from the surveys is reviewed by the board 

and the cabinet, and program or other adjustments are made where necessary. Results of 

the staff survey are shared by the executive director with the whole staff in the executive 

director’s weekly update report. The board and cabinet feel it is important for the staff to 

have the opportunity to provide input on school operations. 

The staff surveys have been favorable overall, showing satisfaction with the school and 

school operations. An area that has been identified as needing improvement is the short 

time frame allocated for staff training when there is a change of procedures. 

Appendix 


B. 

Schoolwide Goals 

Goals 2009-10 

Wildly Important Goals Schoolwide (WIGS) 

Refine Policies and Procedures 

Focus on School Safety 

Promote Physical Fitness/Physical Fitness Testing 

Attain an 800 API (Academic Performance Index) 

Expand Number of/Proficiency in Virtual Classes 

Receive Six-year WASC Accreditation 

Engage in Five-Year Strategic Planning Process 

Increase Reserves to Ten Percent Over Five Years 

Appendix 


Schoolwide Goals 2008-09 

Wildly Important Goals Schoolwide (WIGS) 

Pursue Alternative Funding/Build Assets 

JCS has started discovering and approaching organizations and foundations that could 

provide additional monies to further support JCS academic programs and build a more 

robust school system. 

Grow San Diego 

This is a personal goal of JCS as well as a requirement. It involves efforts to maintain 

compliance with AB 1994. (San Diego ADA must exceed Riverside ADA.) 

Improve Compliance with Regulations 

This objective is meant to ensure JCS is knowledgeable of and operating in accordance with 

all relevant laws, codes, and regulations related to the education code, fiscal matters, and 

other compliance issues. 

Improve Organizational Structures/Processes and Communication 

A strong organizational structure will allow JCS to ensure a quality educational experience 

through aligning policies and procedures with the greater objectives of the school system, 

improving lines of communication and measuring organizational effectiveness. 

Communication and teambuilding are key components. 

Expand Educational Program Offerings/Refine Academy 

It is important that JCS is always developing and executing robust educational programs in 

addition to making JCS more accessible by increasing the number of sites and facilities to 

meet more students’ needs. 

Raise API 

Continual growth and accurate recording of student learning results as measured with 

standardized testing, proficiency rates, and the percentage of students tested are an 

important piece of JCS in reference to achievement, funding, marketing, program 

implementation, and other aspects of overall effectiveness within the school. Specific focus is 

on improving math instruction and, subsequently, math achievement scores. 

Emphasize Training and Development (Educational Facilitators, Parents and Staff) 

This objective seeks to enhance the process by which educational facilitators and staff 

members are oriented toward and become proficient in their roles and with providing 

training opportunities for further development. In addition, this objective seeks to help 

parents improve their teaching abilities in an effort to enhance the student learning 

environment. 

Improve Selection Process of Educational Facilitators 

Selection and matching of teachers’ skills with the appropriate subject and grade level in 

addition to fulfilling faculty “talent” needs is not only integral for student learning, but also 

for compliance with various laws and regulations. 

Appendix 


C. STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OVERVIEW 2010-2014 

The goal of the 2010-2014 Strategic 

Plan is to systematically shift 

focus from growth, in terms of 

acquisitions, to efficiency and 

effectiveness. 

• Improved sustainability 

• Increased commitment to core JCS values 

• Progress towards vision 

• Growth in students served 

• Increased effectiveness and efficiency in 

delivering personalized learning 

Objective 

Integration of JCS Cultures: value 

similarities and differences within and 

between the JCS programs to facilitate 

integration of each other’s strengths 

Develop Enrollment Strategies: increase 

the awareness of JCS offerings and values to 

a larger population 

Budget Scenario Planning: anticipate 

both future cuts and growth by developing 

a plan that is thorough and strategically 

advantageous 

Efficient Use of Technology: become the 

local market leader in the efficient use of 

technology for personalized learning 

Outcomes 

• Increased ownership 

• Increased comprehension of organizational 

problems, potential solutions, and systemic 

impacts 

• Improved information sharing 

• Increased morale 

• Increased innovation 

• Increased cross-program recruitment 

• Lessened impact of budget cuts 

• Potential to increase reserve 

• Increased sustainability 

• Improved sustainability during economic 

hardship 

• Ability to thrive during economic recovery 

• Attract more parents 

• Increased student/EF retention 

• Ability to target more students in rural areas 

• Increased enrollment 

• Reduce demands of EFs 

• Increased options for personalized learning 

• Increased EF, student, and parent competency 

• Improve communication 

Appendix 


D. SUPPLEMENTARY PROFILE DATA 

Chart 7: Enrollment by Gender 2008 

Gender Count 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Number of Students Enrolled by Gender, Fall 2008 

Enrollment = 1962 (Female 989, Male 973) 

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

Female 51 51 58 68 66 56 79 82 69 99 99 93 118 

Male 50 64 71 72 80 70 85 66 75 92 67 100 81 

Chart 8: Two-year Enrollment Pattern by Grade Level 

Two-year Enrollment Pattern by Grade 

Level (2008-09 - 2009-10) 

Kindergarten ±100 to Grade 12 ±200 

Grade Level 

12 

9 

6 

3 

K 

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Chart 9: Comparison of K-12 to 9-12 Enrollment 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Comparison of K-12 to 9-12 Enrollment 

1,601 

1872 1962 

1664 

595 711 755 749 

37% 43% 40% 38% 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

Appendix 


Table 14: Home Study, Independent Study, and Academy Enrollment 

Home Study, Independent Study, and Academy Enrollment 

Home Study Independent Study Academy Schoolwide 

K-8 821 (67%) 4 (0%) 402 (33%) 1227 (62%) 

9-12 338 (44%) 92 (12%) 316 (42%) 746 (38%) 

K-12 1159 (59%) 96 (5%) 718 (36%) 1973 (100%) 

Source: JCS SIS, 1/12/2009 

Table 15: Primary Language 

Year Number of Students Enrolled by Primary Language EL 

English Spanish Japanese Korean Farsi Vietnamese Other Total Count 

2006-07 1662 1 1 1664 1 

2007-08 1859 10 1 1 1 1872 1 

2008-09 1909 40 1 2 10 1962 3 

Source: JCS SIS 

Table 16: Academy Enrollment by Site 

Enrollment by Academy 

Academy Site County Established Grade Levels Enrollment Site % 

San Diego H.S. San Diego Fall 2005 9-12 57 8% 

San Diego M.S. San Diego Fall 2005 6-8 53 7% 

Murrieta H.S. Riverside Fall 2005 9-12 100 14% 

Murrieta M.S. Riverside Fall 2008 6-8 40 6% 

North County (Closed 09-10) San Diego Winter 2006 6-12 42 6% 

Pine Valley San Diego Fall 2005 7-12 71 10% 

Alpine San Diego Fall 2006 8-12 87 12% 

Innovation Centre-T Riverside* Fall 2007 K-8 145 20% 

Innovation Centre-E San Diego Fall 2008 K-5 28 4% 

Phoenix Learning Centre San Diego Fall 2008 K-6 95 13% 

Total 718 100% 

Source: JCS Student Information System, 1/12/2009 

*Cross-county enrollment 

Table 17: Special Education Services 

Year 

JCS 

Enrollment 

Special 

Education 

Enrollment 

(Sept./Oct) 

% Special 

Education 

Enrollment 

Average Number of 

Students Served 

Monthly 

Receiving 

Speech & 

Language 

Services 

Receiving 

Resource 

Specialist 

Services 

Receiving 

Other 

Services 

Academies account for 36% of overall 

enrollment—33% K-8 and 42% 9-12. 

Students 

with 504s 

2006-07 1664 160 9.6% 83 116 21 NR 

2007-08 1872 172 9.2% 78 123 26 31 

2008-09 1956 185 9.5% 88 138 30 52 

Source: JCS Special Education Yearly Fall Reports to Governing Board 

NR=Not Reported 

Table 18: Number and Percent of English Language Learners Reclassified 

EL Reclassified 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

School District School District School District 

Total EL Eligible 1 37 1 49 3 54 

# Reclassified 0 4 0 0 0 1 

% Reclassified 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 2% 

Fluent-English-Proficient 17 31 14 24 24 15 

Sources: JCS SIS, Fall 2006, 2007, 2008; DataQuest 

Table 19: Number and Percent of Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch 

Year Free/Reduced Lunch Total Enrollment 

2006-07 250 (15%) 1664 

2007-08 262 (14%) 1872 

2008-09 293(15%) 1956 

Source: JCS SIS; http://api.cde.ca.gov 

Appendix 


Table 20: Parent Education 

1 2 3 4 5 

Not a H.S. 

Graduate 

H.S. 

Graduate 

Some 

College 

College 

Graduate 

Graduate 

School 

Parent Education 

Level Average 

2006-07 1% 25% 33% 24% 16% 3.28 

2007-08 2% 19% 33% 26% 20% 3.43 

2008-09 2% 18% 31% 30% 19% 3.46 

Source: JCS SIS; http://api.cde.ca.gov 

Table 21: School Financial Support ($15 Million Budget) 

Expenditures Per Pupil (Basic) Expenses Dollars Percent of Total 

2006-07 $6,715 Personnel $ 8,207,697 54.6% 

2007-08 $6,834 Benefits $ 2,504,078 16.7% 

2008-09 $7,731 Instruction $ 1,534,279 10.2% 

Source: JCS Chief Business Officer Equipment $ 143,184 1.0% 

Fixed Costs $ 2,632,319 17.5% 

Total $ 15,021,557 100% 

Table 22: Schoolwide, Program, and County APIs 

2008 Group APIs Elementary 

API (K-6) 


API (7-8) 

High School 

API (9-11) 

Site/Group 

API 

Site/Group 

Growth 

JCS 771 801 733 764 35 

Academies 863 873 802 832 48 

Alpine - 730 751 746 -8 

Murrieta - - 829 829 -35 

North County (Closed) - 860 850 863 18 

Pine Valley - 841 775 802 81 

San Diego - 929 819 874 28 

Innovation Centre 859 943 - 869 16 

Home Study 757 770 714 749 28 

Orange County 888 790 830 849 101 

Riverside County 720 769 717 734 43 

San Diego County 764 837 745 780 70 

Source: JCS Internal Calculations 

Table 23: Schoolwide, Program, and County APIs 

2009 Group APIs Elementary 

API (K-6) 


API (7-8) 


API (9-11) 

Site/Group 

API 

Site/Group 

Growth 

JCS 806 802 721 772 8 

Academies 869 862 786 828 -4 

Alpine - 797 757 764 18 

Murrieta High School - - 763 763 -66 

Murrieta Middle School - 884 - 884 (First Year) 

North County (Closed) - 880 870 875 12 

Pine Valley - 809 764 779 -23 

San Diego - 880 834 862 -12 

Innovation Centre-T 842 876 - 849 -20 

Innovation Centre-E 762 - - 762 (First Year) 

PLC 922 - - 922 (First Year) 

Home Study 779 756 677 745 -4 

Orange County 861 779 754 829 -20 

Riverside County 777 779 688 741 7 

San Diego County 813 835 750 793 13 

Source: JCS Internal Calculations 

Appendix 


Chart 12 

Chart 10: STAR Participation Rate 

STAR Participation Rate 

Testing Year 

2008 

2007 

2006 

2005 

89% 90% 91% 92% 93% 94% 95% 96% 


Chart 11: Math Proficiency – Gr. Level/End-of-Course (EOC) Test 

60% 

50% 

40% 

30% 

20% 

10% 

0% 

2008 Math Percent Proficient or Above 

by Grade Level or EOC Test 

Charts 12 and 13: Algebra I 

2007 

2005 

Percent of Grade 8 

Students 

Taking CST Algebra 

Test 

0% 20% 40% 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Algebra I Enrollment 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

Gr. 8 Gr. 9 Gr. 10 Gr. 11 Gr. 12 8-12 

Total 

Appendix 


Table 24: D and F Grades in Math Schoolwide Shown as Percent of All Grades Given 

D and F Grades Fall 08-09 Spring 08-09 Fall 08-09 Spring 08-09 

% of All Grades 

Grades of D 

Grades of F 

Algebra (Pre/A) 12 (13%) 21 (24%) 9 (9%) 18 (21%) 

Algebra I 30 (16%) 30 (16%) 27 (14%) 33 (18%) 

Algebra II 5 (6%) 16 (20%) 10 (13%) 11 (13%) 

Geometry 15 (11%) 11 (8%) 14 (10%) 25 (17%) 

Trig/Pre-Calc 2 (9%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 

Total number reflected Fall 2008-09 = 527 

Table 25: Grades in Math First Semester 2008-09 

Math Grades 

Semester 1 

A B C D F Total 

Algebra (Pre/A) 16 (17%) 33 (35%) 25 (26%) 12 (13%) 9 (9%) 95 

Algebra I 24 (13%) 59 (31%) 49 (26%) 30 (16%) 27 (14%) 189 

Algebra II 15 (19%) 27 (35%) 21 (27%) 5 (6%) 10 (13%) 78 

Geometry 33 (24%) 45 (33%) 30 (22%) 15 (11%) 14 (10%) 137 

Trig/Pre-Calc 6 (27%) 9 (41%) 4 (18%) 2 (9%) 1 (5%) 22 

Source: SIS 

Table 26: Number and Percent of Academy and Home Study Algebra I Grades 2008-09 

ALG I (Fall) A B C D F Total 

AC 21 (20%) 39 (38%) 19 (18%) 16 (16%) 8 (8%) 100 (100%) 

HS/IS 4 (4%) 22 (25%) 30 (34%) 14 (16%) 19 (21%) 89 (100%) 

All 25 (13%) 61 (32%) 49 (26%) 30 (16%) 27 (14%) 192 (100%) 

ALG I (Spring) A B C D F Total 

AC 13 (13%) 29 (28%) 32 (31%) 14 (14%) 15 (15%) 103 (100%) 

HS/IS 4 (5%) 17 (21%) 25 (31%) 16 (20%) 18 (23%) 80 (100%) 

All 17 (9%) 46 (25%) 57 (31%) 30 (16%) 33 (18%) 183 (100%) 

Source: SIS 

Table 27: D and F Grades in English Schoolwide Shown as Percent of All Grades Given 

D and F Grades Fall 08-09 Spring 08-09 Fall 08-09 Spring 08-09 

% of All Grades 

Grades of D 

Grades of F 

English 9/I 20 (10%) 20 (11%) 31 (15%) 18 (10%) 

English 10/II 16 (10%) 15 (8%) 8 (5%) 19 (10%) 

English 11/III 17 (9%) 21 (11%) 13 (7%) 19 (10%) 

English 12/IV 16 (10%) 8 (6%) 7 (4%) 2 (1%) 

Total number reflected Fall 08-09 = 729 

Table 28: Grades in English First Semester 2008-09 

English Grades A B C D F Total 

English 9/I 42 (21%) 68 (34%) 41 (20%) 20 (10%) 31 (15%) 202 

English 10/II 64 (38%) 53 (32%) 27 (16%) 16 (10%) 8 (5%) 168 

English 11/III 65 (33%) 59 (30%) 43 (22%) 17 (9%) 13 (7%) 197 

English 12/IV 45 (28%) 63 (39%) 31 (19%) 16 (10%) 7 (4%) 162 

Source: SIS 

Table 29: Number and Percent of Academy and Home Study English Grades Fall 2008-09 

English (Fall) A B C D F Total 

AC 121 (40%) 103 (34%) 57 (19%) 17 (6%) 7 (2%) 305 (100%) 

HS/IS 94 (22%) 140 (33%) 86 (20%) 52 (12%) 53 (12%) 425 (100%) 

All 215 (29%) 243 (33%) 143 (20%) 69 (9%) 60 (8%) 730 (100%) 

English (Spring) A B C D F Total 

AC 121 (17%) 103 (14%) 57 (8%) 17 (2%) 7 (1%) 305 (42%) 

HS/IS 94 (13%) 140 (19%) 86 (12%) 52 (7%) 53 (7%) 425 (58%) 

All 215 (29%) 243 (33%) 143 (20%) 69 (9%) 60 (8%) 730 (100%) 

Source: SIS 

Appendix 


Table 30: CAHSEE English-Language Arts (ELA) 

Percent of Students by Graduating Class Who Have Passed 

Class of 2007 

Class of 2008 

Class of 2009 

All 

Administrations 

All 


All 


Count % Passed Count % Passed Count % Passed 

All Students 

School - All Students 149/155 96% 156/163 96% 151/156 97% 

Gender 

Male 75/77 97% 73/77 95% 63/65 97% 

Female 74/78 95% 83/86 97% 88/91 97% 

Race/Ethnicity 

African American/Black 5/5 100% 9/10 90% 5/5 100% 

Am. Indian/AK Native 5/6 83% 4/4 100% 4/4 100% 

Asian 2/2 100% 3/3 100% 4/4 100% 

Filipino 2/2 100% 1/1 100% 3/3 100% 

Hispanic/Latino 21/23 91% 26/28 93% 29/30 97% 

Pacific Islander 1/1 100% 2/2 100% 0 - 

White not Hispanic 110/113 97% 110/114 96% 106/110 96% 

Multiple/No Response 3/3 100% 1/1 100% 0 - 

Language Fluency 

English Only 148/154 96% 155/162 96% 151/156 97% 

Redesignated FEP 1/1 100% 1/1 100% 0 - 

EL 0 - 0 - 0 - 

General Education/Special Education or 504 

General Education 136/138 99% 144/147 98% 142/143 99% 

Special Education/504 13/17 76% 12/16 75% 10/13 77% 

Table 31: CAHSEE Mathematics 

Percent of Students by Graduating Class Who Have Passed 

Class of 2007 

Class of 2008 

Class of 2009 

All 


All 


All 


Count % Passed Count % Passed Count % Passed 

All Students 

School - All Students 148/155 95% 149/163 91% 149/156 96% 

Gender 

Male 76/77 99% 70/77 91% 64/65 98% 

Female 72/78 92% 79/86 92% 85/91 93% 

Race/Ethnicity 

African American/Black 5/5 100% 8/10 80% 5/5 100% 

Am. Indian/AK Native 5/6 83% 3/4 75% 4/4 100% 

Asian 2/2 100% 3/3 100% 4/4 100% 

Filipino 2/2 100% 0/1 0% 3/3 100% 

Hispanic/Latino 21/23 91% 26/28 93% 30/30 100% 

Pacific Islander 1/1 100% 2/2 100% 0 - 

White not Hispanic 109/113 96% 106/114 93% 103/110 94% 

Multiple/No Response 3/3 100% 1/1 100% 0 - 

Language Fluency 

English Only 148/154 96% 148/162 91% 149/156 96% 

Redesignated FEP 0/1 0% 1/1 100% 0 - 

EL 0 - 0 - 0 - 

General Education/Special Education or 504 

General Education 134/138 97% 141/147 96% 140/143 98% 

Special Education/504 14/17 82% 8/16 50% 9/13 69% 

Appendix 


Table 32: CAHSEE ELA Census (Combined February/May) Summary 

ELA 

Gr. 10 

Census 

Valid 

Scores 

Number 

Passed 

Percent 

Passed 

Number 

Not 

Passed 

Percent 

Not 

Passed 

Mean 

Scale 

Score 

Word 

Analysis 

Reading 

Comp 

Average Percent Correct 

Literary 

Response Writing 

-Analysis Strategies 

Average 

Score 

Writing 

Conventions Essay 

2006-07 174 141 79% 33 19% 382 79% 81% 79% 70% 75% 2.5 

2007-08 165 146 88% 19 12% 388 85% 81% 85% 73% 79% 2.5 

2008-09 155 141 91% 14 9% 393 87% 82% 83% 77% 79% 2.7 

Source: CAHSEE Data Disks from Education Testing Service (ETS) 

Table 33: CAHSEE ELA Census (Combined February/May) Gender Summary 

ELA 

Gr. 10 

Census 

Valid 

Scores 

Number 

Passed 

Percent 

Passed 

Number 

Not 

Passed 

Percent 

Not 

Passed 

Mean 

Scale 

Score 

Word 

Analysis 

Reading 

Comp 


Literary 

Response Writing 

-Analysis Strategies 

Writing 

Conventions 

Average 

Score 

F 06-07 96 83 86% 13 14% 391 81% 84% 84% 73% 80% 2.6 

M 06-07 78 58 74% 20 26% 371 77% 77% 74% 66% 69% 2.3 

F 07-08 78 73 94% 5 6% 393 84% 81% 87% 76% 82% 2.6 

M 07-08 87 73 84% 14 16% 384 86% 80% 84% 70% 77% 2.4 

F 08-09 95 91 96% 4 4% 398 87% 83% 85% 81% 82% 2.8 

M 08-09 60 50 83% 10 17% 386 87% 81% 80% 72% 74% 2.6 

* F=Female; M=Male 

Table 34: CAHSEE ELA Census (Combined February/May) General Ed/Special Ed or 504 Summary 

ELA 

Gr. 10 

Census 

Valid 

Scores 

Number 

Passed 

Percent 

Passed 

Number 

Not 

Passed 

Percent 

Not 

Passed 

Mean 

Scale 

Score 

Word 

Analysis 

Reading 

Comp 


Literary 

Response 

-Analysis 

Writing 

Strategies 

Essay 

Average 

Score 

Writing 

Conventions Essay 

G 06-07 164 136 83% 28 17% 384 80% 82% 80% 71% 76% 2.5 

S 06-07 10 5 50% 5 50% 347 74% 62% 63% 48% 59% 1.9 

G 07-08 157 143 91% 14 9% 391 85% 82% 86% 74% 80% 2.5 

S 07-08 8 3 38% 5 63% 343 77% 65% 69% 54% 58% 1.2 

G 08-09 141 132 94% 9 6% 396 88% 84% 84% 79% 81% 2.7 

S 08-09 14 9 64% 5 36% 360 78% 66% 70% 61% 62% 2.2 

G=General Education; S=Special Education or 504 Plan 

Table 35: CAHSEE Math Census (Combined February/May) Demographic Summary 

Math 

Gr. 10 

Census 

Valid 

Scores 

Number 

Passed 

Percent 

Passed 

Number 

Not 

Passed 

Percent 

Not 

Passed 

Mean 

Scale 

Score 

Probability 

and 

Statistics 

Number 

Sense 


Algebra 

and 

Functions 

Measurement 

and 

Geometry 

Algebra I 

2006-07 169 124 72% 45 27% 374 74% 68% 67% 64% 53% 

2007-08 167 140 84% 27 16% 379 74% 72% 71% 68% 56% 

2008-09 160 124 78% 36 23% 378 77% 71% 73% 65% 54% 

Source: CAHSEE Data Disk from Education Testing Service (ETS) 

Table 36: CAHSEE Math Census (Combined February/May) Gender Summary 

Math 

Gr. 10 

Census 

Valid 

Scores 

Number 

Passed 

Percent 

Passed 

Number 

Not 

Passed 

Percent 

Not 

Passed 

Mean 

Scale 

Score 

Probability 

and 

Statistics 

Number 

Sense 

Algebra 

and 

Functions 


Measurement 

and 

Geometry 

Algebra I 

F 06-07 95 72 76% 23 24% 378 77% 68% 69% 65% 55% 

M 06-07 74 52 70% 22 30% 370 71% 67% 65% 63% 51% 

F 07-08 79 67 85% 12 15% 380 75% 72% 72% 67% 58% 

M 07-08 88 73 83% 15 17% 379 73% 72% 70% 69% 55% 

F 08-09 97 74 76% 23 24% 379 77% 71% 74% 65% 55% 

M 08-09 63 50 79% 13 21% 376 76% 70% 71% 65% 53% 

* F=Female; M=Male 

Appendix 


Table 37: CAHSEE Math Census (Combined February/May) General Ed/SPED or 504 Summary 

Math 

Gr. 10 

Census 

Valid 

Scores 

Number 

Passed 

Percent 

Passed 

Number 

Not 

Passed 

Percent 

Not 

Passed 

Mean 

Scale 

Score 

Probability 

and 

Statistics 

Number 

Sense 

Algebra 

and 

Functions 

Measurement 

and 

Geometry 

Algebra I 

G 06-07 159 119 75% 40 25% 375 75% 68% 68% 65% 54% 

S 06-07 10 5 50% 5 50% 356 67% 58% 56% 55% 42% 

G 07-08 159 135 85% 24 15% 380 75% 73% 72% 68% 57% 

S 07-08 8 5 63% 3 38% 357 56% 61% 59% 60% 44% 

G 08-09 146 117 80% 29 20% 380 78% 72% 75% 66% 55% 

S 08-09 14 7 50% 7 50% 355 62% 57% 58% 56% 44% 

G=General Education; S=Special Education or 504 Plan 

Table 38: CAHSEE Results for Grade 10 Students—Three-Year Comparison 

CAHSEE Grade 10 School State 

Subject 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

English-Language Arts 81% 88% 91% 77% 79% 79% 

Mathematics 73% 84% 78% 76% 78% 80% 

Source: http://cahsee.cde.ca.gov/ 

Table 39: CAHSEE Proficient/Advanced, All Students—Three-Year JCS/State Comparison 

CAHSEE PRO/ADV School State 

Subject 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 

English-Language Arts 58.3% 55.6% 63.9% 51.1% 48.6% 52.9% 

Mathematics 47.4% 41.3% 54.4% 46.8% 49.9% 51.3% 

*Passing=350+; Proficient, for NCLB, is 380 for ELA/math; Advanced is 403 for ELA and 422 for math 

Table 40: S1 2008-09 Math and English Grades Matched to Mid-Year CAHSEE Pass Rates 

Math P NP NS Total English P NP NS Total 

A 65 3 4 72 A 166 4 10 180 

B 124 9 10 143 B 165 16 8 189 

C 87 21 7 115 C 94 6 11 111 

D 46 12 2 60 D 44 3 5 52 

F 37 11 6 54 F 21 6 4 31 

Total 359 56 29 444 Total 490 35 38 563 

P = Pass; NP = Not Passed; NS = No Score 

Table 41: Ninth Grade Reading 

Reading Gr. 9 Average Average Average 

N=158 

RIT Score Percentile Lexile Score 

Low Average High 

Academy 230 67 1148 

Home Study 227 59 1092 

29 

44 

85 

INSITE 223 47 1017 

18% 28% 54% 

HS/IS 227 58 1083 

Total 229 63 1122 

Hi-percentile > 66; AV-percentile between 66 and 34; LO-percentile

Chart 14: CAHSEE English 2008-09 Non-Passers Matched to English Grades 

Student Count 

Total 10-12 Non-Passers = 33 + 1 Post-grade 12 

Total Non-Taken = 32 

Source: SP SIS 

Chart 15: CAHSEE Math 2008-09 Non-Passers Matched to Math Grades 

Student Count 

Total 10-12 Non-Passers = 60 + 9 Post-grade 12 

Total Non-Taken = 27 

Source: SP SIS 

CAHSEE ELA 2008-09 Non-Passers Matched to 

English Spring Grades 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

3 

3 

5 

1 

4 

2 

4 

4 4 

Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 

Not Passed 

2 

1 

0 0 0 

Not Taken 

A 3 2 0 4 

B 3 4 1 10 

C 5 4 4 10 

D 1 0 0 5 

F 4 2 0 3 

CAHSEE Math 2008-09 Non-Passers Matched 

to Math Spring Grades 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

0 

9 

11 

7 7 

7 

1 

3 

4 

10 11 12 

Not Passed 

0 

10 

4 

10 

5 

Not Taken 

A 0 1 0 4 

B 9 3 0 4 

C 11 4 7 7 

D 7 7 2 3 

F 7 2 0 9 

2 

0 

0 

7 7 

2 

0 

4 

4 

3 

3 

9 

Appendix 


Table 43: Number of Students Enrolled in CP Classes 2007-08 and 2008-09 

CP Classes 

2008 and 2009 

Students 

Enrolled in CP 

Class 

% of 

Students 

CP Classes 

2008 and 

2009 

Students 

Enrolled 

in CP Class 

% of Students 

08 09 08 09 08 09 08 09 

Math 

English 

Algebra I P 48 87 7% 12% English I 93 131 13% 18% 

Algebra IB P 16 17 2% 2% English II 84 89 12% 12% 

Algebra II P 66 74 9% 10% English III 77 95 11% 13% 

Geometry P 68 105 10% 14% English IV 48 62 7% 8% 

Int Math IIP 2 2 0% 0% English Total 302 377 43% 50% 

Int Math IIIP 1 1 0% 0% Foreign Language 

Trig/Pre-cal P 22 22 3% 3% ASL I P 4 5 1% 1% 

Math Total 223 308 31% 41% French I P 6 5 1% 1% 

Social Sciences French II P 1 3 0% 0% 

Amer Govt P 15 46 2% 6% French III P 1 0 0% 0% 

Economics P 48 35 7% 5% German I P 10 2 1% 0% 

US Hist P 95 95 13% 13% German II P 1 0 0% 0% 

WD Hist P 91 90 13% 12% Latin IIA P 2 1 0% 0% 

SS Total 249 266 35% 36% Spanish I P 120 106 17% 14% 

Science Spanish II P 55 26 8% 3% 

Biology P 93 92 13% 12% Spanish III P 17 9 2% 1% 

Chemistry P 60 60 8% 8% Spanish IV P 1 0 0% 0% 

Earth Sci P 106 149 15% 20% FL Total 214 152 30% 20% 

Physics P 7 16 1% 2% Grand Total 1254 1420 

Science Total 266 317 38% 42% 

Source: SIS *Gr. 9-12 enrollment: 5/7/2008, 708; 4/28/2009, 747 

Table 44: Number of Students Meeting University of California a-g Requirements 

Af. Am. / 

Black 

Am. Ind. / 

AK Native 

Asian 

Filipino 

Hispanic / 

Latino 

Pac. 

Islander 

White 

Multiple / 

No 

Response 

2006-07 0 0 1 1 2 0 21 0 25 

2007-08 1 2 1 0 8 0 25 1 38 

2008-09 1 1 1 2 8 0 30 0 43 

Source: EdData 

Table 45: Students Enrolled/Completed Courses Required for UC/CSU Admission 

UC/CSU 

a-g Courses 

Percent Students Enrolled in Courses 

Required for UC/CSU Admission 

Graduates Who Completed All Courses 

Required for UC/CSU Admission 

2006-07 22.5% 15.6% 

2007-08 20.4% 17.4% 

2008-09 30.1% 24.8% 


Table 46: Admission in Postsecondary Education, Armed Forces, and Workforce 

Graduate Intention Survey Data 

Surveys/Graduates Four-Year College Community College Armed Forces Trade/Apprentice Workforce 

2005-06 (46/128) 18 23 3 2 0 

2006-07(55/155) 17 27 2 9 0 

2007-08 (122/163) 22 66 3 14 17 

2008-09 (124/156) 22 68 5 13 16 

Source: Academic Counselor 

Total 

Appendix 


Table 47: Percent and Average Scores for 2005-2008 SAT Reasoning Tests 

Indicator 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Percent of Grade 12 Students Taking the Test 14.1 13.3 9.6 13.1 17.0 

Average Verbal Score 579 583 626 535 563 

Average Math Score 560 543 563 515 518 

Average Writing Score N/A 561 593 514 534 

Average Total Score N/A 1687 1782 1564 1615 

Source: SARC and http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sp/ai/ 

Table 48: Percent and Average Scores for 2005-2008 PSAT 

Indicator 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Number of Grades 10-11 Students Taking the Test 22 33 42 61 

Percent of Grades 10-11 Students Taking the Test 7% 9% 10% 17% 

Average Verbal Score 56.9 51.2 50.8 49.4 

Average Math Score 50.7 51.5 49.9 47.0 

Average Writing Score 56.1 53.2 48.7 48.0 

Source: JCS PSAT Records 

Table 49: Percent and Average Scores for 2008 EAP 

2008 Early Assessment Program -- Readiness for . . . EAP CST Participation 

College 

English 

College 

Mathematics 

(Algebra II) 

College 

Mathematics 

(Summative 

HS Math) 

Readiness for 

College 

Mathematics 

(Total) 

Students Tested 79 183 43% 

Ready for College 9 (11%) 

Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness on Assessment 70 (89%) 



Ready for College - Conditional 2 (17%) 


Students Tested 8 18 *% 

Ready for College *% 

Ready for College - Conditional *% 

Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness on Assessment *% 





Source: http://eap2008.ets.org/Viewreport.asp 

Table 50: Percent and Average Scores for 2009 EAP 

2009 Early Assessment Program -- Readiness for . . . EAP CST Participation 

College 

English 

College 

Mathematics 

(Algebra II) 

College 

Mathematics 

(Summative 

HS Math) 

Readiness for 

College 

Mathematics 

(Total) 








Students Tested 9 17 *% 

Ready for College *% 

Ready for College - Conditional *% 

Did Not Demonstrate College Readiness on Assessment *% 





Source: http://eap2009.ets.org/Viewreport.asp 

Appendix 


Chart 16: ELA Percent At or Above Proficient 

English-Language Arts - Percent At or Above Proficient 

Schoolwide 

Af. American/Black 

Am. Indian/AK Native 

Asian 

Filipino 

Hispanic or Latino 

White 

SED 

English Learners 

Students w/Disabilities 

2007 

2008 


0 20 40 60 80 100 


Chart 17: Mathematics Percent At or Above Proficient 

Mathematics - Percent At or Above Proficient 

Schoolwide 

Af. American/Black 

Am. Indian/AK Native 

Asian 

Filipino 

Hispanic or Latino 

White 

SED 

English Learners 

Students w/Disabilities 

2007 

2008 


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 


Assessments used for AYP calculations: CSTs (California Standards Tests), grades 2-8; 

CMA (California Modified Assessment), grades 3-5 (2008); CAPA (California Alternate 

Performance Assessment), grades 2-8 and 10; and CAHSEE (California High School Exit 

Examination), grade 10. 

ELA Proficiency Targets: 2007 22.3 —; 2008 33.4 —; 2009 46.0 — 

Math Proficiency Targets: 2007 20.9 —; 2008 32.2 —; 2009 47.5 — 

Appendix 


CELDT 

Following previous year’s trends, very few JCS students are in need of EL services. The 29 

9-12 students assessed in 2007-08 with the CEDLT test are classified as: 1–Early Intermediate, 

4–Intermediate, 14–Early Advanced, and 10–Advanced. In 2008-09, JCS tested 29 

students in grades 9-12 on the CELDT. Seventeen percent of those students need additional 

English language development. Eighty-two percent are under evaluation for FEP or R- 

FEP classification. 

Table 51: Percent of 2008-09 English Learners by Proficiency Level (CELDT-Form F) 

2008-09 English Learners by 

Proficiency Level (CELDT-Form F) 

Advanced 

Grades 

K-12 

Percent of K-12 

Students Tested 

Grade 

9 

Grade 

10 

Grade 

11 

Grade 

12 

Percent of 


Advanced 

School (Number & Percent) 16 30% 4 1 2 3 34% 

Early Advanced 

Early Advanced 

School (Number & Percent) 27 51% 4 4 3 3 48% 

Intermediate 

Intermediate 

School (Number & Percent) 2 4% 1 2 - 1 14% 

Early Intermediate 

Early Intermediate 

School (Number & Percent) 8 15% - - - 1 3% 

Beginning 

Beginning 

School (Number & Percent) - 0% - - - - 0% 

Source: http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/ 

Table 52: Comparison of Percent and Number of 2007 and 08 Students Tested by Grade Level 

2007-08 Grade Level 


State 

CELDT (Form F) Scores 2005 2006 2007 Count 2008 Percent 2005 2006 2007 Count 2008 Percent 

Grade 9 

Grade 9 

Grade 9 

% Advanced - 44% 7% 6% 

% Early Advanced - 44% 29% 31% 

% Intermediate - 11% 39% 40% 

% Early Intermediate 100% -- 16% 15% 

% Beginning - - 9% 8% 

Total Number Tested 1 9 82,319 81,401 


% Advanced 25% 14% 7% 6% 

% Early Advanced 38% 57% 29% 31% 

% Intermediate 13% 29% 37% 38% 

% Early Intermediate 25% - 17% 16% 

% Beginning - - 10% 10% 



% Advanced 33% 40% 9% 9% 

% Early Advanced 33% 60% 32% 35% 

% Intermediate 33% - 34% 34% 

% Early Intermediate - - 16% 14% 



Test results for 2006-07 cannot be compared with any 

CELDT results of previous years (Forms A-E) 


% Advanced 68% 38% 12% 11% 

% Early Advanced - 38% 33% 37% 

% Intermediate - 13% 32% 32% 

% Early Intermediate 33% 13% 15% 13% 



* Annual Assessment Results Source: http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/ 

Test results for 2006-07 cannot be compared with any 

CELDT results of previous years (Forms A-E) 

Appendix 


Table 53: STAR ELA Reporting Clusters 

STAR 08 English-Language Arts Grades 2-11 Reporting Clusters 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Grades 2-11 

Word Analysis & Vocab 

Development 

Grades 2-11 

Reading 

Comprehension 

Grades 2-11 

Literary Response and 

Analysis 

Grades 2-11 

Written Conventions 

Grades 2-11 

Writing Strategies 

Grades 4 and 7 

Writing Applications 

Grade 

AV 

Score 

# Qs 

AV % 

Correct 

AV 

Score 

# Qs 

AV % 

Correct 

AV 

Score 

# Qs 

AV % 

Correct 

AV 

Score 

# Qs 

AV % 

Correct 

AV 

Score 

# Qs 

AV % 

Correct 

AV 

Score 

# Qs 

AV % 

Correct 

2 13.21 22 60% 8.15 15 54% 3.88 6 65% 7.51 14 54% 3.47 8 43% 

3 14.33 20 72% 10.31 15 69% 5.85 8 73% 8.32 13 64% 5.05 9 56% 

4 13.59 18 76% 9.66 15 64% 6.11 9 68% 11.18 18 62% 8.40 15 56% 4.84 8 60% 

5 10.35 14 74% 9.86 16 62% 8.36 12 70% 11.70 17 69% 8.80 16 55% 

6 9.53 13 73% 11.84 17 70% 7.68 12 64% 12.61 16 79% 11.44 17 67% 

7 7.74 11 70% 12.70 18 71% 8.77 13 67% 10.54 16 66% 10.76 17 63% 5.42 8 68% 

8 6.82 9 76% 12.80 18 71% 10.61 15 71% 12.38 16 77% 10.91 17 64% 

9 5.87 8 73% 12.05 18 67% 11.44 16 72% 8.36 13 64% 12.18 20 61% 

10 6.06 8 76% 11.26 18 63% 9.48 16 59% 8.84 13 68% 12.63 20 63% 

11 4.91 8 61% 10.61 19 56% 10.75 17 63% 5.32 9 59% 12.66 22 58% 

Average % Correct Statewide 

Grade MPro MAdv All MPro MAdv All MPro MAdv All MPro MAdv All MPro MAdv All MPro MAdv All 

2 73% 88% 68% 63% 81% 60% 74% 90% 68% 71% 89% 65% 51% 71% 50% 

3 78% 89% 70% 70% 86% 62% 80% 95% 67% 80% 95% 67% 65% 82% 56% 

4 71% 86% 70% 55% 74% 58% 67% 82% 67% 66% 79% 66% 54% 72% 57% 63% 68% 63% 

5 73% 87% 69% 58% 78% 58% 69% 86% 66% 76% 89% 72% 57% 74% 56% 

6 71% 84% 66% 63% 78% 61% 58% 75% 56% 79% 90% 73% 62% 78% 59% 

7 70% 84% 66% 69% 85% 65% 64% 79% 59% 65% 79% 62% 59% 79% 58% 70% 79% 70% 

8 68% 82% 64% 66% 81% 62% 66% 81% 62% 77% 87% 70% 58% 75% 55% 

9 71% 85% 66% 64% 79% 61% 67% 85% 64% 61% 77% 59% 56% 72% 54% 

10 79% 88% 71% 69% 84% 60% 65% 81% 59% 76% 85% 66% 70% 84% 61% 

11 66% 80% 59% 64% 77% 55% 71% 82% 60% 71% 88% 59% 69% 82% 57% 

MPro = Minimally Proficient* 

MAdv = Minimally Advanced** 

* = Average percentage of items answered correctly by students statewide who scored 350, the lowest scale score for the proficient performance level 

** = Average percentage of items answered correctly by students statewide who scored at the advanced performance level 

The above chart is a sample of types of data available to ELT, DCs, CT Leads and PLCs for data analysis. 

Appendix 


California Department of Education 

Statewide Assessment Division 

Return to Test Results Search 

California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) 

Julian Charter School 

All Students 

Total Enrollment on First Day of Testing: 1,601 County Name: San Diego County 

Total Number Tested: 1,547 District Name: Julian Charter District 

Total Number Tested in Selected Subgroup: 1,547 

School Name: Julian Charter School 

CDS Code: 37-68163-3731239 

California Standards Test Scores - 2009 

Grades 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EOC 

Reported Enrollment 134 143 145 129 153 171 150 193 189 194 

CST English-Language Arts 

Students Tested 129 136 135 118 150 167 142 190 184 190 

% of Enrollment 96.3 % 95.1 % 93.1 % 91.5 % 98.0 % 97.7 % 94.7 % 98.4 % 97.4 % 97.9 % 

Students with Scores 128 136 135 117 150 167 142 190 184 190 

Mean Scale Score 351.8 349.6 382.3 381.4 373.6 376.3 364.7 364.9 340.2 330.6 

% Advanced 20 % 21 % 42 % 32 % 31 % 34 % 26 % 28 % 22 % 13 % 

% Proficient 33 % 29 % 29 % 43 % 43 % 38 % 32 % 32 % 23 % 24 % 

% Basic 27 % 29 % 22 % 18 % 17 % 20 % 32 % 29 % 27 % 28 % 

% Below Basic 11 % 15 % 5 % 5 % 7 % 6 % 9 % 6 % 16 % 21 % 

% Far Below Basic 9 % 7 % 1 % 3 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 4 % 12 % 14 % 

CST Mathematics 

Students Tested 129 136 135 117 149 163 

% of Enrollment 96.3 % 95.1 % 93.1 % 90.7 % 97.4 % 95.3 % 

Students with Scores 129 135 135 115 149 163 

Mean Scale Score 360.3 358.7 361.4 349.2 343.7 342.5 

% Advanced 26 % 23 % 24 % 17 % 16 % 10 % 

% Proficient 30 % 32 % 32 % 24 % 26 % 31 % 

% Basic 23 % 21 % 27 % 27 % 36 % 36 % 

% Below Basic 17 % 22 % 16 % 24 % 14 % 19 % 

% Far Below Basic 4 % 2 % 1 % 8 % 8 % 4 % 

CST General Mathematics 

Students Tested 97 52 149 

% of Enrollment 64.7 % 26.9 % 

Students with Scores 96 52 148 

Mean Scale Score 338.5 305.9 327.2 

% Advanced 4 % 0 % 3 % 

% Proficient 36 % 23 % 32 % 

% Basic 41 % 25 % 35 % 

% Below Basic 15 % 38 % 23 % 

% Far Below Basic 4 % 13 % 7 % 

CST Algebra I 


% of Enrollment 2.3 % 26.7 % 48.7 % 28.6 % 20.1 % 

Appendix 



Mean Scale Score * 316.5 305.1 286.7 289.8 301.7 

% Advanced * 3 % 2 % 4 % 3 % 3 % 

% Proficient * 18 % 16 % 7 % 8 % 13 % 

% Basic * 40 % 26 % 19 % 21 % 26 % 

% Below Basic * 33 % 41 % 39 % 46 % 39 % 

% Far Below Basic * 8 % 15 % 31 % 23 % 19 % 

CST Integrated Math 1 

Students Tested 1 1 

% of Enrollment 0.7 % 

Students with Scores 1 1 

Mean Scale Score * * 

% Advanced * * 

% Proficient * * 

% Basic * * 

% Below Basic * * 

% Far Below Basic * * 

CST Geometry 

Students Tested 2 37 56 39 134 

% of Enrollment 1.3 % 19.2 % 29.6 % 20.1 % 

Students with Scores 2 37 56 39 134 

Mean Scale Score * 321.6 290.6 269.5 294.8 

% Advanced * 3 % 2 % 0 % 2 % 

% Proficient * 32 % 9 % 5 % 15 % 

% Basic * 30 % 25 % 8 % 21 % 

% Below Basic * 32 % 57 % 67 % 52 % 

% Far Below Basic * 3 % 7 % 21 % 10 % 

CST Algebra II 


% of Enrollment 1.3 % 3.1 % 10.6 % 25.3 % 


Mean Scale Score * * 299.1 277.6 288.5 

% Advanced * * 0 % 0 % 0 % 

% Proficient * * 25 % 6 % 14 % 

% Basic * * 25 % 22 % 23 % 

% Below Basic * * 20 % 35 % 31 % 

% Far Below Basic * * 30 % 37 % 31 % 

CST Summative High School Mathematics 

Students Tested 1 2 17 20 

% of Enrollment 0.5 % 1.1 % 8.8 % 

Students with Scores 1 2 17 20 

Mean Scale Score * * 312.7 309.5 

% Advanced * * 0 % 0 % 

% Proficient * * 24 % 20 % 

% Basic * * 24 % 30 % 

% Below Basic * * 53 % 50 % 

% Far Below Basic * * 0 % 0 % 

CST History - Social Science Grade 8 

Students Tested 141 


Students with Scores 141 

Mean Scale Score 345.5 

% Advanced 16 % 

% Proficient 30 % 

% Basic 36 % 


% Below Basic 13 % 

% Far Below Basic 5 % 

CST World History 


% of Enrollment 6.2 % 83.6 % 12.9 % 


Mean Scale Score 315.7 328.4 284.3 322.4 

% Advanced 8 % 15 % 9 % 14 % 

% Proficient 25 % 19 % 5 % 18 % 

% Basic 17 % 28 % 14 % 25 % 

% Below Basic 8 % 15 % 14 % 15 % 

% Far Below Basic 42 % 22 % 59 % 28 % 

CST U.S. History 







% Basic 29 % 



CST Science - Grade 5, Grade 8, and Grade 10 Life Science 


% of Enrollment 90.7 % 94.0 % 97.4 % 



% Advanced 28 % 22 % 17 % 

% Proficient 32 % 29 % 22 % 

% Basic 27 % 28 % 26 % 

% Below Basic 9 % 14 % 19 % 


CST Biology 


% of Enrollment 6.7 % 63.0 % 12.4 % 



% Advanced 8 % 12 % 4 % 10 % 

% Proficient 38 % 20 % 4 % 19 % 

% Basic 31 % 37 % 54 % 39 % 

% Below Basic 8 % 13 % 33 % 16 % 


CST Chemistry 




Mean Scale Score * 317.3 317.0 

% Advanced * 6 % 5 % 

% Proficient * 12 % 11 % 

% Basic * 46 % 48 % 

% Below Basic * 17 % 18 % 

% Far Below Basic * 19 % 18 % 

Appendix 


* 

CST Earth Science 


155 21 32 208 

% of Enrollment 

80.3 % 11.1 % 16.5 % 



% Advanced 17 % 10 % 6 % 15 % 

% Proficient 31 % 19 % 28 % 29 % 

% Basic 37 % 24 % 41 % 36 % 

% Below Basic 10 % 33 % 13 % 13 % 


CST Physics 







% Basic * * 


% Far Below Basic * 

Appendix 


California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) 


All Students 

Total Enrollment on First Day of Testing: 1,427 County Name: San Diego County 

Total Number Tested: 1,425 District Name: Julian Charter District 

Total Number Tested in Selected Subgroup: 1,425 School Name: Julian Charter School 

California Standards Test Scores - 2008 

CDS Code: 37-68163-3731239 

Grades 

Print Report 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EOC 

Reported Enrollment 116 112 98 109 141 144 181 167 176 183 

CST English-Language Arts 

Students Tested 114 112 97 109 141 141 180 161 175 183 

% of Enrollment 98.3 % 100.0 % 99.0 % 100.0 % 100.0 % 97.9 % 99.4 % 96.4 % 99.4 % 100.0 % 

Students with Scores 114 112 95 109 141 141 180 161 175 183 

Mean Scale Score 328.9 342.1 362.5 352.0 367.7 364.0 370.3 367.3 340.6 331.9 

% Advanced 14 % 16 % 27 % 16 % 33 % 26 % 31 % 27 % 20 % 14 % 

% Proficient 20 % 30 % 34 % 38 % 33 % 36 % 32 % 40 % 25 % 26 % 

% Basic 31 % 28 % 28 % 31 % 24 % 21 % 28 % 22 % 29 % 28 % 

% Below Basic 20 % 16 % 7 % 12 % 9 % 13 % 4 % 8 % 18 % 21 % 

% Far Below Basic 15 % 10 % 3 % 4 % 1 % 4 % 4 % 2 % 9 % 11 % 

CST Mathematics 


% of Enrollment 98.3 % 100.0 % 98.0 % 100.0 % 99.3 % 93.1 % 


Mean Scale Score 354.2 348.1 338.4 328.5 341.2 339.7 

% Advanced 23 % 18 % 17 % 7 % 9 % 10 % 

% Proficient 24 % 31 % 22 % 28 % 34 % 28 % 

% Basic 26 % 20 % 38 % 30 % 34 % 40 % 

% Below Basic 23 % 22 % 21 % 22 % 19 % 16 % 

% Far Below Basic 4 % 9 % 3 % 12 % 4 % 6 % 

CST General Mathematics (Grades 6 & 7 Standards) 





% Advanced 10 % 3 % 7 % 

% Proficient 26 % 16 % 22 % 

% Basic 38 % 38 % 38 % 

% Below Basic 19 % 32 % 24 % 


CST Algebra I 


% of Enrollment 4.2 % 37.0 % 35.9 % 24.4 % 12.6 % 


Mean Scale Score * 333.2 317.7 300.0 272.8 314.4 

% Advanced * 6 % 0 % 2 % 0 % 3 % 

% Proficient * 33 % 25 % 12 % 0 % 23 % 

% Basic * 30 % 43 % 30 % 22 % 32 % 

% Below Basic * 25 % 23 % 42 % 48 % 30 % 

% Far Below Basic * 6 % 8 % 14 % 30 % 12 % 

Appendix 






Mean Scale Score * 


% Basic * * 



CST Geometry 


% of Enrollment 3.9 % 18.6 % 31.8 % 20.2 % 


Mean Scale Score * 339.2 300.9 270.9 306.5 

% Advanced * 0 % 4 % 0 % 4 % 

% Proficient * 52 % 14 % 0 % 21 % 

% Basic * 23 % 25 % 24 % 24 % 

% Below Basic * 26 % 46 % 51 % 40 % 

% Far Below Basic * 0 % 11 % 24 % 11 % 








% Basic * * 

% Below Basic * 

CST Algebra II 


% of Enrollment 0.6 % 2.4 % 13.1 % 17.5 % 


Mean Scale Score * * 317.0 291.0 301.6 

% Advanced * * 0 % 0 % 0 % 

% Proficient * * 22 % 3 % 12 % 

% Basic * * 48 % 41 % 43 % 

% Below Basic * * 17 % 34 % 27 % 

% Far Below Basic * * 13 % 22 % 18 % 








% Basic * * 



CST Summative High School Mathematics (Grades 9-11) 





% Advanced * 6 % 5 % 


% Basic * 33 % 32 % 

% Below Basic * 17 % 16 % 



CST History-Social Science (Grade 8 Cumulative) 







% Basic 35 % 



CST World History 


% of Enrollment 9.0 % 86.4 % 11.5 % 



% Advanced 7 % 13 % 5 % 12 % 

% Proficient 0 % 15 % 10 % 14 % 

% Basic 43 % 32 % 35 % 33 % 

% Below Basic 29 % 19 % 10 % 19 % 


CST U.S. History 







% Basic 38 % 



CST Science (Grade 5, Grade 8, and Grade 10 Life Science) 


% of Enrollment 99.1 % 99.4 % 97.7 % 



% Advanced 12 % 25 % 15 % 

% Proficient 34 % 28 % 22 % 

% Basic 32 % 29 % 36 % 

% Below Basic 13 % 9 % 18 % 


CST Biology/Life Sciences 


% of Enrollment 10.2 % 52.8 % 14.2 % 



% Advanced 6 % 9 % 4 % 7 % 

% Proficient 29 % 34 % 35 % 34 % 

% Basic 47 % 35 % 23 % 35 % 

% Below Basic 18 % 15 % 15 % 15 % 


CST Chemistry 





% Advanced * 7 % 6 % 


% Basic * 42 % 41 % 

% Below Basic * 18 % 16 % 



CST Earth Science 


% of Enrollment 70.1 % 24.4 % 17.5 % 



% Advanced 14 % 19 % 3 % 13 % 

% Proficient 31 % 21 % 19 % 27 % 

% Basic 39 % 51 % 59 % 45 % 

% Below Basic 9 % 2 % 13 % 8 % 


CST Physics 




Mean Scale Score * * * 

% Advanced * * * 

% Proficient * * * 

% Basic * * * 

% Below Basic * * * 

% Far Below Basic * * * 

Appendix 


E . 

S ARC 

School Accountability Report Card 

Reported for School Year 2008-09 

Published During 2009-10 

The School Accountability Report Card (SARC), which is required by law to be published annually, contains information 

about the condition and performance of each California public school. More information about SARC requirements is 

available on the California Department of Education (CDE) SARC Web page. For additional information about the school, 

parents and community members should contact the school principal or the district office. 

I. Data and Access 

DataQuest 

DataQuest is an online data tool located on the CDE DataQuest Web page that contains additional information about 

this school and comparisons of the school to the district, the county, and the state. Specifically, DataQuest is a dynamic 

system that provides reports for accountability (e.g., Academic Performance Index [API], Adequate Yearly Progress 

[AYP], test data, enrollment, graduates, dropouts, course enrollments, staffing, and data regarding English learners. 

Internet Access 

Internet access is available at public libraries and other locations that are publicly accessible (e.g., the California State 

Library). Access to the Internet at libraries and public locations is generally provided on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Other use restrictions include the hours of operation, the length of time that a workstation may be used (depending on 

availability), the types of software programs available on a workstation, and the ability to print documents. 

II. About This School 

Contact Information (School Year 2009-10) 

This section provides the school’s contact information. 


District 

School Name Julian Charter District Name Julian Union Elementary 

Street 1704 Cape Horn Phone Number 760-765-0661 

www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/districts/julianel/julianel 

City, State, Zip Julian, CA 92036 Web Site 

www.juliancharterschool.org 

Phone Number 760-765-3847 Superintendent Kevin Ogden 

Principal Jennifer Cauzza E-mail Address kogden@sdcoe.k12.ca.us 

E-mail Address jcauzza@juliancharterschool.org CDS Code 37-68163-3731239 

School Description and Mission Statement (School Year 2008-09) 

This section provides information about the school, its programs and its goals. 

Julian Charter School (JCS) is an independent study K-12 charter school sponsored by the Julian Union (Elementary) 

School District. The school was established in November 1999 to meet the needs of students who were underserved by 

traditional delivery systems of education or for families who had a strong desire to home school. The school serves 

students in Orange, Imperial, Riverside, and San Diego counties with the majority of the students clustered in San Diego 

and Riverside counties. 

As of 2000, Julian Charter School is a non-profit corporation and, as such, receives direct funding from the state. 

Administrative offices are housed on the Julian Junior High School campus in the town of Julian in the mountains of 

northeast San Diego County. 

The school offers a variety of programs and resources to meet the needs of home study/independent study families 

including: resource and meeting center, library, learning centers, academy program at various sites, and support 

programs. The school is accredited through the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). 

Appendix 


Julian Charter School’s mission is to provide an exemplary personalized learning program in a resource-rich 

environment. We are dedicated to nurturing passionate lifelong learners. Core values include: 

• Creativity and Innovation: Envision and explore rich teaching and learning opportunities. 

• Commitment: Educate students to their full potential and uphold the greater good of the school. 

• Choice: Empower individual paths and goals through personalized learning. 

• Excellence: Foster a climate of high expectations, quality, and accountability. 

• Integrity and Compassion: Model honesty, dignity, fairness, and responsibility while demonstrating respect and 

understanding. 

Opportunities for Parental Involvement (School Year 2008-09) 

This section provides information about opportunities for parents to become involved with school activities. 

Julian Charter School parents are actively involved in the Julian Charter School program. Examples of involvement 

include participation in the daily teaching of their children, opportunities to serve on the Advisory Council, accompanying 

students on field trips, monthly meetings with an educational facilitator, and schoolwide (or geographically situated) 

meetings and events throughout the year. In addition, parents are invited to participate in professional development 

programs, service learning, and other workshops and seminars offered by the school. Communication mechanisms 

include meetings with facilitators and advisors, newsletters, event/opportunity flyers, wikis, e-mail, JCS Online, and the 

JCS web site. 

Student Enrollment by Grade Level (School Year 2008-09) 

This table displays the number of students enrolled in each grade level at the school. 

Grade Level Number of Students Grade Level Number of Students 

Kindergarten 101 Grade 8 144 

Grade 1 115 Ungraded Elementary 0 

Grade 2 129 Grade 9 191 




Grade 6 164 Ungraded Secondary 0 

Grade 7 148 Total Enrollment 1962 

Student Enrollment by Group (School Year 2008-09) 

This table displays the percent of students enrolled at the school who are identified as being in a particular group. 

Group 

Percent of 

Percent of 

Group 

Total Enrollment 

Total Enrollment 

African American 3.52% White (not Hispanic) 71.87% 

American Indian or Alaska Native 1.99% Multiple or No Response 5.30% 

Asian 2.40% Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 15.00% 

Filipino 1.33% English Learners 0% 

Hispanic or Latino 13.30% Students with Disabilities 9.00% 

Pacific Islander 0.31% 

Average Class Size and Class Size Distribution (Secondary) 

This table displays, by subject area, the average class size and the number of classrooms that fall into each size category 

(a range of total students per classroom). 

2007-08 2008-09 

Subject Avg. Class Number of Classrooms Avg. Class Number of Classrooms 

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

English 27.7 13 5 9 0 

Mathematics 28.9 12 3 7 15.1 42 3 7 

Science 22.1 13 1 6 

Social Science 27.8 9 1 9 

Appendix 


III. School Climate 

School Safety Plan (School Year 2008-09) 

This section provides information about the school's comprehensive safety plan. 

Due to the nature of Julian Charter School’s program, students are taught primarily in the home. As such, JCS has not 

had a problem with student safety. 

The school provides campuses (meeting/resource center and learning centers/academies) which are safe, orderly, and 

support student learning. 

With the expansion of site-based programs and expanded learning center opportunities, Julian Charter School has a 

school/schoolwide safety plan that includes site-based policies and expectations. 

Suspensions and Expulsions 

This table displays the rate of suspensions and expulsions (the total number of incidents divided by the total enrollment) at 

the school and district levels for the most recent three-year period. 

Rate 


District 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

Suspensions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Expulsions 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

IV. School Facilities 

School Facility Conditions and Planned Improvement (School Year 2009-10) 

This section provides information about the condition of the school’s grounds, buildings, and restrooms based on the most 

recent data available, and a description of any planned or recently completed facility improvements. 

Julian Charter School has numerous meeting/learning centers that offer academic and enrichment classes for JCS 

students. Two of the sites also provide space for student meetings, offer scheduled tutorial sessions, and serve as a 

venue for other student, parent, or staff interactions. These sites include the San Diego Learning Center, located in the 

heart of San Diego, and the Murrieta Meeting Center, located in a fast-growing, newly developed area of Murrieta. The 

other satellite center is located in Riverside County. In addition to the learning centers, the school has six academies 

interspersed throughout our primary attendance areas: San Diego, Murrieta, Temecula, Pine Valley, Alpine, and North 

County. The JCS Meeting Center and the San Diego site, besides serving as academic centers, are used for 

professional development meetings, testing, and resource, special education and language services. The 7200 square 

foot Resource Center, part of the Murrieta site, houses our vast collection of educational materials. Administrative 

facilities are located on the site of our sponsoring district. All the facilities are leased, safe, clean, and in good repair. 

School Facility Good Repair Status (School Year 2009-10) 

This table displays the results of the most recent school site inspection to determine the school facility’s repair status. 

Item Inspected 

Repair Status 

Good Fair Poor 

Repair Needed and Action Taken/Planned 

Systems: Gas Leaks, Mechanical/HVA, Sewer √ 

Interior: Interior Surfaces 

√ 

Cleanliness: Overall Cleanliness, Pest/Vermin √ 

Infestation 

Electrical: Electrical 

√ 

Restroom/Fountains: Restroom, 

√ 

Sinks/Fountains 

Safety: Fire Safety, Hazardous Materials 

√ 

Structural: Structural Damage, Roofs 

√ 

External: Playground/School Grounds, 

√ 

Windows/Doors/Gates/Fences 

Overall Rating √ N/A 

Appendix 


V. Teachers 

Teacher Credentials 

This table displays the number of teachers assigned to the school with a full credential, without a full credential, and those 

teaching outside of their subject area of competence. Detailed information about teacher qualifications can be found on 

the DataQuest Web page. 

Teachers 


District 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 

With Full Credential 98 124 131 154 

Without Full Credential 18 3 0 0 

Teaching Outside Subject Area of Competence N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Teacher Misassignments and Vacant Teacher Positions 

This table displays the number of teacher misassignments (teachers assigned without proper legal authorization) and the 

number of vacant teacher positions (not filled by a single designated teacher assigned to teach the entire course at the 

beginning of the school year or semester). Note: Total Teacher Misassignments includes the number of Misassignments 

of Teachers of English Learners. 

Indicator 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Misassignments of Teachers of English Learners N/A N/A N/A 

Total Teacher Misassignments N/A N/A N/A 

Vacant Teacher Positions N/A N/A N/A 

Core Academic Classes Taught by No Child Left Behind Compliant Teachers (School Year 2008-09) 

This table displays the percent of classes in core academic subjects taught by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) compliant and 

non-NCLB compliant teachers in the school, in all schools in the district, in high-poverty schools in the district, and in lowpoverty 

schools in the district. More information on teacher qualifications required under NCLB can be found at the CDE 

Improving Teacher and Principal Quality Web page. 

Percent of Classes In Core Academic Subjects 

Location of Classes 

Taught by 

NCLB Compliant Teachers 

Taught by 

Non-NCLB Compliant Teachers 

This School 100% 0% 

All Schools in District 100% 0% 

High-Poverty Schools in District N/A N/A 

Low-Poverty Schools in District N/A N/A 

VI. Support Staff 

Academic Counselors and Other Support Staff (School Year 2008-09) 

This table displays, in units of full-time equivalents (FTE), the number of academic counselors and other support staff who 

are assigned to the school and the average number of students per academic counselor. One FTE equals one staff 

member working full time; one FTE could also represent two staff members who each work 50 percent of full time. 

Title 

Number of FTE 

Assigned to School 

Average Number of 

Students per 

Academic Counselor 

Academic Counselor 2.2 839 

Library Media Teacher (Librarian) 

N/A 

Psychologist 0.1 N/A 

Speech/Language/Hearing Specialist (non-teaching 1.3 N/A 

Other 3.0 N/A 

Appendix 


VII. 

Curriculum and Instructional Materials 

Quality, Currency, and Availability of Textbooks and Instructional Materials (School Year 2009-10) 

This table displays information about the quality, currency, and availability of the standards-aligned textbooks and other 

instructional materials used at the school, and information about the school’s use of any supplemental curriculum or nonadopted 

textbooks or instructional materials. 

Core Curriculum Area 

Quality, Currency, and Availability of Textbooks 

and 

Instructional Materials 

Percent of Pupils 

Who Lack Their Own 

Assigned Textbooks and 

Instructional Materials 

Reading/Language Arts Standards-aligned texts available for all students. 0% 

Mathematics Standards-aligned texts available for all students. 0% 

Science Standards-aligned texts available for all students. 0% 

History-Social Science Standards-aligned texts available for all students. 0% 

Foreign Language Standards-aligned texts available for all students. 0% 

Health Standards-aligned texts available for all students. 0% 

Visual and Performing Arts Standards-aligned texts available for all students. 0% 

Science Laboratory Equipment 

(grades 9-12) 

Science laboratory equipment available for all high 

school labs. 

High quality instructional materials and curricula are available for all students at all grade levels. Materials are updated 

and replaced, as needed. Standards-aligned textbooks and other instructional materials are stocked in the Resource 

Center and, as needed, available through special order. The K-8 program has extensive flexibility to work with instructional 

materials that optimize learning and teaching for the student and family, while the high school program has recommended, 

and in some cases required, materials for core and elective coursework. In science, appropriate standards 

aligned take-home science kits and site-based labs are available for students not taking the course in a classroom setting. 

VIII. School Finances 

Expenditures Per Pupil and School Site Teacher Salaries (Fiscal Year 2007-08) 

This table displays a comparison of the school’s per pupil expenditures from unrestricted (basic) sources with other 

schools in the district and throughout the state, and a comparison of the average teacher salary at the school site with 

average teacher salaries at the district and state levels. Detailed information regarding school expenditures can be found 

at the CDE Current Expense of Education and Per-pupil Spending Web page and teacher salaries can be found on the 

CDE Certificated Salaries and Benefits Web page. 

Level 

Total 

Expenditures 

Per Pupil 

Expenditures 

Per Pupil 

(Supplemental) 

Expenditures 

Per Pupil 

(Basic) 

Appendix 

Julian Charter School Focus on Learning 2009-2010 137 

0% 

Average 

Teacher 

Salary 

School Site $6,834 N/A $6,834 $49,062 

District N/A N/A $7,224 $68,700 

Percent Difference – School Site and District N/A N/A 7% 30% 

State $5,512 N/A $5,512 $56,284 

Percent Difference – School Site and State N/A N/A 27% 10% 

Types of Services Funded (Fiscal Year 2008-09) 

This section provides information about the programs and supplemental services that are provided at the school through 

either categorical funds or other sources. 

All services are supported through the school’s general budget, which includes charter school block funding. Special 

programs include learning center classes, academy program, tutoring, eClubs, independent study, vendor course 

instruction, JCS Online learning management system, high school specialists, portfolio program, personalized learning 

(includes options for curricula, pacing, pedagogy, program placement or blended services), service learning, intramural 

sports, extensive field trips, and programs and services designed to ensure that all students are provided opportunities for 

success such as student academic counseling, speech therapy, special education and resource specialist services, 

Student Study Team (SST), Safety Net (SN) and CAHSEE intensive intervention services.

Teacher and Administrative Salaries (Fiscal Year 2007-08) 

This table displays district salaries for teachers, principals, and superintendents, and compares these figures to the state 

averages for districts of the same type and size. The table also displays teacher and administrative salaries as a percent 

of a district's budget, and compares these figures to the state averages for districts of the same type and size. Detailed 

information regarding salaries may be found on the CDE Certificated Salaries and Benefits Web page. 

Category 

District 

Amount 

State Average 

For Districts 

In Same Category 

Beginning Teacher Salary $36,843 $38,481 

Mid-Range Teacher Salary $48,823 $55,789 

Highest Teacher Salary $89,290 $70,849 

Average Principal Salary (Elementary) $0 $88,862 

Average Principal Salary (Middle) $95,200 $94,015 

Average Principal Salary (High) $0 $97,594 

Superintendent Salary $145,000 $110,994 

Percent of Budget for Teacher Salaries 35.90% 37.20% 

Percent of Budget for Administrative Salaries 5.90% 6.60% 

IX. Student Performance 

California Standards Tests 

The California Standards Tests (CSTs) show how well students are doing in relation to the state content standards. The 

CSTs include English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics in grades 2 through 11; science in grades 5, 8, and 9 through 

11; and history-social science in grades 8, and 10 through 11. Student scores are reported as performance levels. 

Detailed information regarding CST results for each grade and performance level, including the percent of students not 

tested, can be found on the CDE Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Results Web site. Program information 

regarding the STAR Program can be found in the Explaining 2008 STAR Program Summary Results to the Public guide. 

Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is 10 or less, either because the number of students in 

this category is too small for statistical accuracy or to protect student privacy. In no case shall any group score be 

reported that would deliberately or inadvertently make public the score or performance of any individual student. 

CST Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison 

This table displays the percent of students achieving at the Proficient or Advanced level (meeting or exceeding the state 

standards). 

Subject 

School District State 

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

English-Language Arts 48 54 58 49 54 59 43 46 50 

Mathematics 29 35 37 32 38 40 40 43 46 

Science 34 45 49 37 48 51 38 46 50 

History-Social Science 23 31 38 25 32 39 33 36 41 

Standardized Testing and Reporting Results by Student Group (School Year 2008-09) 

This table displays the percent of students, by group, achieving at the Proficient or Advanced level (meeting or exceeding 

the state standards) for the most recent testing period. 

Group 

English- 

Language Arts 

Percent of Students Scoring at Proficient or Advanced 

Mathematics 

Science 

History- 

Social Science 

African American 51 33 38 31 

American Indian or Alaska Native 51 29 27 40 

Asian 74 64 * * 

Filipino 59 33 * * 

Hispanic or Latino 49 25 29 28 

Pacific Islander * * * * 

Appendix 


White (not Hispanic) 61 39 55 41 

Male 54 40 48 40 

Female 63 34 50 37 

Economically Disadvantaged 44 25 32 27 

English Learners * * * * 

Students with Disabilities 30 28 36 14 

California High School Exit Examination 

The California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) is primarily used as a graduation requirement. However, the 

grade 10 results of this exam are also used to establish the percentages of students at three proficiency levels (not 

proficient, proficient, or advanced) in ELA and mathematics in order to compute Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) 

designations as required by the federal NCLB Act of 2001. Detailed information regarding CAHSEE results can be found 

at the CAHSEE Web site. Note: Scores are not shown when the number of students tested is 10 or less, either because 

the number of students in this category is too small for statistical accuracy, or to protect student privacy. In no case shall a 

group score be reported that deliberately/inadvertently makes public the score or performance of an individual student. 

CAHSEE Results for Grade 10 Students – Three-Year Comparison 

This table displays the percent of students passing the CAHSEE with a score of 350 or above in English-language arts 

and mathematics. 

Subject 


2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

English-Language Arts 79% 88% 91% N/A N/A N/A 77% 79% 79% 

Mathematics 72% 84% 77% N/A N/A N/A 76% 78% 80% 

CAHSEE Results by Performance Level for All Students – Three-Year Comparison 

This table displays the percent of students achieving at the Proficient or Advanced level in English-language arts and 

mathematics. 

Subject 


2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

English-Language Arts 55.6% 63.9% 72.7% N/A N/A N/A 48.6% 52.9% 52.0% 

Mathematics 41.3% 54.4% 52.3% N/A N/A N/A 49.9% 51.3% 53.3% 

CAHSEE Results by Performance Level for Student Groups – Most Recent Year 

This table displays the percent of students, by group, achieving at each performance level in English-language arts and 

mathematics for the most recent testing period. (Passing = 350 or above; Proficient, for NCLB purposes, is defined as 380 

for both ELA and math. Advanced, for NCLB purposes, is defined as 403 for ELA and 422 for math.) 

Group 

English-Language Arts 

Not 

Proficient Advanced 

Proficient 

Not 

Proficient 

Mathematics 

Proficient 

Advanced 

All Students 27.3 27.3 45.5 47.7 39.8 12.5 

Male 38.9 27.8 33.3 50.0 41.7 8.3 

Female 19.2 26.9 53.8 46.2 38.5 15.4 

African American * * * * * * 

American Indian or Alaska Native * * * * * * 

Asian/Filipino * * * * * * 

Hispanic or Latino 37.5 31.2 31.2 76.5 17.6 5.9 

Pacific Islander * * * * * * 

White (not Hispanic) 23.8 27.0 49.2 40.3 45.2 14.5 

Economically Disadvantaged 35.2 35.3 29.4 56.2 37.5 6.2 

English Learners * * * * * * 

Students with Disabilities * * * * * * 

Appendix 


California Physical Fitness Test Results (School Year 2008-09) 

The California Physical Fitness Test is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 9 only. This table displays by grade 

level the percent of students meeting the healthy fitness zone on all six fitness standards for the most recent testing 

period. Detailed information regarding this test, and comparisons of a school’s test results to the district and state levels, 

may be found at the CDE Physical Fitness Testing (PFT) Web page. 

Grade 

Percent of Students Meeting Healthy Fitness Zones 

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

5 20.8 31.2 20.8 

7 22.8 31.7 21.1 

9 24.5 28.2 14.7 

X. Accountability 

Academic Performance Index 

The Academic Performance Index (API) is an annual measure of the academic performance and progress of schools in 

California. API scores range from 200 to 1,000, with a statewide target of 800. Detailed information about the API can be 

found at the CDE Academic Performance Index (API) Web page. 

API Ranks – Three-Year Comparison 

This table displays the school’s statewide and similar schools API ranks. The statewide API rank ranges from 1 to 10. A 

statewide rank of 1 means that the school has an API score in the lowest 10 percent of all schools in the state, while a 

statewide rank of 10 means that the school has an API score in the highest 10 percent of all schools in the state. The 

similar schools API rank reflects how a school compares to 100 statistically matched “similar schools.” A similar schools 

rank of 1 means that the school’s academic performance is comparable to the lowest performing 10 schools of the 100 

similar schools, while a similar schools rank of 10 means that the school’s academic performance is better than at least 90 

of the 100 similar schools. 

API Rank 2006 2007 2008 

Statewide 7 7 8 

Similar Schools 9 10 10 

API Changes by Student Group – Three-Year Comparison 

This table displays, by student group, the actual API changes in points added or lost for the past three years, and the 

most recent API score. Note: "N/A" means that the student group is not numerically significant. 

Growth API 

Actual API Change 

Group 

Score 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008 

All Students at the School 5 35 7 770 

African American N/A N/A N/A N/A 

American Indian or Alaska Native N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Asian/Filipino N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hispanic or Latino 23 15 7 710 

Pacific Islander N/A N/A N/A N/A 

White (not Hispanic) 5 36 7 783 

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 22 47 5 723 

English Learners N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Students with Disabilities N/A N/A N8 586 

Adequate Yearly Progress 

The federal NCLB Act requires that all schools and districts meet the following Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) criteria: 

• Participation rate on the state’s standards-based assessments in English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics 

• Percent proficient on the state’s standards-based assessments in ELA and mathematics 

• API as an additional indicator 

• Graduation rate (for secondary schools) 

Appendix 


Detailed information about AYP, including participation rates and percent proficient results by student group, can be found 

at the CDE Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Web page. 

AYP Overall and by Criteria (School Year 2008-09) 

This table displays an indication of whether the school and the district made AYP overall and whether the school and the 

district met each of the AYP criteria. 

AYP Criteria School District 

Overall No No 

Participation Rate - English-Language Arts No Yes 

Participation Rate - Mathematics No Yes 

Percent Proficient - English-Language Arts Yes Yes 

Percent Proficient - Mathematics No No 

API Yes Yes 

Graduation Rate No N/A 

Federal Intervention Program (School Year 2009-10) 

Schools and districts receiving federal Title I funding enter Program Improvement (PI) if they do not make AYP for two 

consecutive years in the same content area (English-language arts or mathematics) or on the same indicator (API or 

graduation rate). After entering PI, schools and districts advance to the next level of intervention with each additional year 

that they do not make AYP. Detailed information about PI identification can be found at the Adequate Yearly Progress 

(AYP) Web page. 

Indicator School District 

Program Improvement Status Not in PI Not in PI 

First Year of Program Improvement 

Year in Program Improvement 

Number of Schools Currently in Program Improvement 

N/A 

Percent of Schools Currently in Program Improvement 

N/A 

XI. School Completion and Postsecondary Preparation 

Admission Requirements for California Public Universities 

University of California 

Admission requirements for the University of California (UC) follow guidelines set forth in the Master Plan, which requires 

that the top one-eighth of the state’s high school graduates, as well as those transfer students who have successfully 

completed specified college work, be eligible for admission to the UC. These requirements are designed to ensure that all 

eligible students are adequately prepared for University-level work. For general admissions requirements please visit the 

General Admissions Information University of California Web page. 

California State University 

Admission requirements for the California State University (CSU) use three factors to determine eligibility. They are 

specific high school courses; grades in specified courses and test scores; and graduation from high school. Some 

campuses have higher standards for particular majors or students who live outside the local campus area. Because of the 

number of students who apply, a few campuses have higher standards (supplementary admission criteria) for all 

applicants. Most CSU campuses utilize local admission guarantee policies for students who graduate or transfer from high 

schools and colleges that are historically served by a CSU campus in that region. For general admissions requirements 

please visit the Undergraduate Admission and Requirements Web page. 

Dropout Rate and Graduation Rate 

This table displays the school’s one-year dropout rates and graduation rates for the most recent three-year period for 

which data is available. For comparison purposes, data are also provided at the district and state levels. Detailed 

information about dropout rates and graduation rates can be found on the DataQuest Web page at 

http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. 

Appendix 


Indicator 


2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 

Dropout Rate (1-year) 2.9 8.0 13.2 N/A N/A N/A 3.5 4.4 3.9 

Graduation Rate 95.3 86.7 82.3 N/A N/A N/A 83.4 80.6 80.2 

Completion of High School Graduation Requirements 

Students in California public schools must pass both the English-language arts and mathematics portions of the California 

High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) to receive a high school diploma. For students who began the 2008-09 school 

year in grade 12, this table displays by student group the percent who met all state and local graduation requirements for 

grade 12 completion. 

Group 

Graduating Class of 2009 


All Students 97% N/A N/A 

African American N/A N/A N/A 

American Indian or Alaska Native N/A N/A N/A 

Asian N/A N/A N/A 

Filipino N/A N/A N/A 

Hispanic or Latino 97% N/A N/A 

Pacific Islander N/A N/A N/A 

White (not Hispanic) 96% N/A N/A 

Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 94.1 N/A N/A 

English Learners N/A N/A N/A 

Students with Disabilities 77% N/A N/A 

Career Technical Education Programs (School Year 2008-09) 

This section provides information about Career Technical Education (CTE) programs and lists programs offered. 

Julian Charter School offers a state-approved Work Experience Education program where students can gain skills and 

knowledge in job-related topics while being employed. 

Courses for University of California and/or California State University Admission 

(School Year 2008-09) 

This table displays, for the most recent year, two measures related to the school’s courses that are required for University 

of California (UC) and/or California State University (CSU) admission. Detailed information about student enrollment in, 

and completion of, courses required for UC/CSU admission can be found on the CDE DataQuest Web page. 

UC/CSU Course Measure 

Percent 

Students Enrolled in Courses Required for UC/CSU Admission 30.1% 

Graduates Who Completed All Courses Required for UC/CSU Admission 24.8% 

XII. 

Instructional Planning and Scheduling 

Professional Development 

This section provides information on the annual number of school days dedicated to staff development for the most recent 

three-year period. 

Julian Charter School hosts professional development days throughout the school year, approximately every four 

weeks. These sessions are focused on school policy, student achievement, curriculum, teaching and learning strategies, 

technology support and training, and self-selected professional learning communities. Parents are invited to attend 

professional development day trainings and events such as the Curriculum Expo, Q Meetings, and hands-on science 

workshops provide additional opportunities for teacher and parent professional development. Each successive year, the 

number and quality of in-school professional development offerings increases. 

Appendix 


Select CDS to Report: 

CBEDS 

California Basic Educational Data System 


County: 

District: 

School: 

CDS Code: 

San Diego 

Julian Union Elementary 


37681633731239 

School Information Form (SIF) 

October 2008 

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

NativeTwo or 

More Races, 

Not Hispanic 

Asian, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Pacific 

Islander, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Filipino, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Male 

Hispanic 

or Latino, 

of Any 

Race 

African 

American 

not 

Hispanic, 

Not 

Hispanic 

White, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Two or 

More 

Races, 

Not 

Hispanic 

American 

Indian or 

Alaska 

Native, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Asian, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Pacific 

Islander, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Filipino, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Female 

Hispanic 

or Latina, 

of Any 

Race 

African 

American 

not 

Hispanic, 

Not 

Hispanic 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) 

A. Number of Classified Staff Report in whole numbers. (Single school districts should report classified staff only on this form.) 

1 Paraprofessional Full Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2 Paraprofessional Part Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

3 Office/Clerical 

Staff 

4 Office/Clerical 

Staff 

5 Other Classified 

Staff 

6 Other Classified 

Staff 

Full Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 12 0 18 

Part Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 6 

Full Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 

Part Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

B. Enrollment in Selected High School Courses (Grades 7-12) 

9 Intermediate Algebra/Algebra II 2 4 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 30 0 65 

10 Other Advanced Math Course 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 8 0 17 

11 Chemistry - First Year 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 29 0 50 

12 Physics - First Year 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 

C. Career Technical Education Enrollment (Grades 9-12) Report each student only once and do not include ROC/P. 

13 Number of Students 2 19 5 4 3 10 115 0 10 37 1 4 3 6 119 0 338 

D. Educational Options E. Technology 

All schools must complete this section if any type of educational option is offered to their students. Students 

should be counted in each category that applies. Please refer to the Glossary of Terms for definitions of 

these educational options. 

Types of Educational Options 

Number of Participating Students 

K-8 9-12 

White, 

Not 

Hispanic 

Two or 

More 

Races, 

Not 

Hispanic 

In line 1 report the number of computers owned or leased by the school that are used for direct instruction, curriculum development, classroom 

management, preparation of instructional materials, or similar activities. If your school does not provide this count, we will assume the answer is 

"0." 

In line 2 report the number of classrooms or other instructional settings at the school (such as computer lab, library, or career center) with an 

Internet connection. If your school does not provide this count, we will assume the answer is "0." 

1 Alternative Schools and Programs of Choice 0 0 1 How many computers does the school have that are used for 

2 AVID 0 0 

instruction-related purposes? If none, enter "0." 

3 California Partnership Academies 0 2 How many classrooms have access to the Internet through at least one 

computer? If none, enter "0." (Must be less than or equal to answer from 

4 Independent Study (not adult education students) 1309 797 

question number 1, above.) 

5 International Baccalaureate Programs 0 0 F. Educational Calendar 

6 Magnet Schools or Programs 0 0 

7 Opportunity 0 0 Do not report both single-track and multitrack for a single school site. If any part of the school is year-round, check single-track or multitrack. 

8 Pregnant/Parenting 0 0 

9 Smaller Learning Communities 0 0 1. Check the type of calendar on which your school operates. 

10 Specialized Secondary Program 0 

Traditional Single-track Multitrack 

11 Thematic Schools 0 0 2. For single-track or multitrack only, check one of the year-round calendars listed below. 

12 Other 0 0 

60/20 

90/30 

Concept 6 

Custom 

13 Total (unduplicated) 1309 797 143 

60/15 

45/15 

Modified Concept 

244 

26 

Totals

Appendix 


Appendix 


Appendix 



Four- Year College Bound 

Four- Year Graduation Plan 

UC CSU Other 

Name: 

Exp. Grad Date: 

EF/Advisor: 

Date Submitted to AC: 

Last Revision Date: 

12th Grade 

Subject 

(Credits) 

Subject 

9th Grade 

10th Grade 

11th Grade 

Graduation Requirements Subject 

(Credits) Subject 


(Credits) 

CP English 

CP English I (10) 

(4 Years-40 Credits) 

Writing (5) 

(Writing-5 Credits) 

CP English II (10) CP English III (10) CP English IV (10) 

CP Math 

CP Pre-Calc/Trig or Higher(10) 

(3 Years-30 Credits) CP Algebra I or Higher (10) CP Geometry or Higher (10) CP Algebra II or Higher (10) 

(4th Year Recommended) 

(30 credits need to be Algebra I or higher) 

CP Social Studies 


CP World History (10) CP US History (10) CP Gov/Econ (10) 

CP Science 

CP Earth Science (10) 

CP Physics (10) 

CP Biology (10) CP Chemistry (10) 


(Recommended-will also meet CP elective credit) 

(3rd Year Recommended) 

Physical Education 


P.E. (10) P.E. (10) 

CP VAPA & CP Foreign Language 

CP Foreign Language II (10) CP Foreign Language III (10) CP VAPA (10) 

(CP VAPA: 1 Year-10 Credits) CP Foreign Language I (10) 

(All FL must be same FL) (3rd Year Recommended) (See JCS Course List) 

(FL: 2 Years-20 Credits) 

Health/Life Skills Health (5) 

(1 Year-10 Credits) Life Skills (See JCS Course List) (5) 

Electives 

(1 Year-10 CP Credits-≤25 Non-CP) 

CP Elective (10) 

Total Credits to Graduate 

(220 Credits) 

60 + Possible 60 + Possible 60 + Possible 60 + Possible 

Summer 

(5-10 Credits) 

TOTAL Credits 9th Cumulative Credits 9th-10th Cumulative Credits 9th-11th Cumulative Credits 9th-12th Cumulative 

Current Grade 

College Preparatory Requirements 

(C or better required to meet a-g) 

(See JCS Course List for approved courses) 

English Math U.S. 

History 

World 

History 

Science 

(w/Lab) 

Foreign Language 

(2 Years of Same Language) 

Visual & 

Performing Arts 

CP 

Electives 

Student Signature 

CSU—California State University 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 

UC—University of California 

(UC Recommended) 

4 3 

(4) 

1 1 2 

(3) 

Parent Signature 

Appendix 

148 Julian Charter School Focus on Learning 2009-2010 

2 

(3) 

1 1 

Academic Counselor Signature

H . Four- Year Graduation Plans 

Julian 

VC CC Other 

Charter School 

Name: 

Exp. Grad Date: 

Vocational/Community College 

EF/Advisor: 

Four-Year Graduation Plan 

Date Submitted to AC: 

Last Revision Date: 

Subject 

9th Grade 

10th Grade 

11th Grade 

12th Grade 

Graduation Requirements Subject 




(Credits) 

English 

English 9 (10) 


Writing (5) 

(Writing-5 Credits) 

English 10 (10) English 11 (10) English 12 (10) 

Math 

(3 Years-30 Credits) Math (10) Math (10) Math (10) 

(10 credits must be Algebra I or higher) 

Social Studies 


World History (10) US History (10) Gov/Econ (10) 

Science 


Earth Science (10) Life Science (10) 

Physical Education 


P.E. (10) P.E. (10) 

Fine Arts or Foreign Language 

(2 Years-20 Credits) (See JCS Course List) 

Health/Life Skills Health (5) 

(1 Year-10 Credits) Life Skills (See JCS Course List) (5) 

Electives 

(45 + Credits) 

Total Credits to Graduate 

(220 Credits) 

60 + Possible 60 + Possible 60 + Possible 60 + Possible 

Summer 

(5-10 Credits) 

TOTAL Credits 9th Cumulative Credits 9th-10th Cumulative Credits 9th-11th Cumulative Credits 9th-12th Cumulative 

Current Grade 

College Preparatory Requirements 

(C or better required to meet a-g.*) 

English Math U.S. 

History 

World 

History 

Science 

(w/Lab) 


(2 Years of Same Language) 

Visual & 

Performing Arts 

CP 

Electives 

Student Signature 

CSU—California State University 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 

Parent Signature 

UC—University of California 

4 3 1 1 2 

2 

1 1 

(UC Recommended) 

(4) 

(3) 

(3) 

Academic Counselor Signature 

* Only JCS CP courses meet the a-g requirements. Students choosing the vocational/community college path will not be eligible to directly apply to any UC/CSU college. 

Appendix 


Curriculum Order Form High School 

2009-2010 

What to Pick-Up at the MMRC 

English 

English Grade 9 

JCS CP 1276 English I Glencoe (Home Study) 

Required 

JCS Course Packet Student Handbook 

Glencoe (CA) Reader's Choice Grade 9 Course 4 (2002) 

Note: The Odyssey & Romeo and Juliet are in the textbook (1 st Semester) 

Glencoe Writer's Choice Grammar and Composition Grade 9 (2005) 

The House on Mango Street (1 st Semester) 

Night OR To Kill a Mockingbird (2 nd Semester) 

Fahrenheit 451 (2 nd Semester) 

Optional 

Programmed College Vocabulary 

Language Network (Grammar for Grade Level) (2001) 

Easy Grammar Plus (Grammar for Struggling Students) (1995) 

JCS Non-CP 1270 English 9 McDougal Littell (Home Study) 

Required 


McDougal Littell (CA) The Language of Literature Grade 9 (2002, 2006) 

Note: The Odyssey & Romeo and Juliet are in the textbook. (1 st Semester) 

The House On Mango Street (1 st Semester) 

To Kill A Mockingbird OR Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman (2 nd Semester) 

Night OR Diary of Anne Frank (2 nd Semester) 

JCS Basic 5380 English 9 Great Source (Home Study) 

Required 

JCS 5380 Course Packet Student Handbook 

The Interactive Reader Plus 9 McDougal Littell (2003) 

Wordly Wise Book 6 (2002) 


JCS CP 1285 English II Glencoe (Home Study) 

Required 


JCS Parent Handbook 

Glencoe Reader's Choice Grade 10 World Literature (2002) 


Macbeth (1st Semester) online 

Appendix 


Things Fall Apart (recommended) OR Black Boy (1st Semester) 

All Quiet on the Western Front (2nd Semester) 

Lord of the Flies (recommended) OR Animal Farm (2nd Semester) 

Optional 




JCS Non-CP 1234 English 10 McDougal Little (Home Study) 

Required 



McDougal Littell (CA) The Language of Literature World Literature Grade 10 (2002) 

Bless Me Ultima OR Things Fall Apart (1st Semester) 

Animal Farm (available online) OR Lord of the Flies (2nd Semester) 


Required 



The Interactive Reader Plus 10 McDougal Littell (2003) 

Wordly Wise Book 7 (2001) 


JCS CP 1294 English III Glencoe (Home Study) 

Required 



Glencoe (CA) The Reader's Choice Grade 11 American Literature (2002) 


The Scarlet Letter (recommended) OR Walden (1 st Semester) both online 

The Advs of Huckleberry Finn OR Narrative Life of Fredrick Douglas -both online (1 st Sem) 

The Grapes of Wrath OR The Great Gatsby - online (2 nd Semester) 

The Crucible OR Death of a Salesman (2 nd Semester) 

Optional 


Language Network (2001) (Grammar for Grade Level) 



Required 



McDougal Littell (CA) The Language of Literature American Literature Grade 11 (2002) 

The Crucible (1 st Semester) 

The Scarlet Letter (1 st Semester) online 

The Grapes of Wrath OR My Antonia (2 nd Semester) online 

Appendix 


JCS Remedial 5707 Basic English 11 Great Source 

Required 

Daybook of Critical Reading and Writing: Gr. 11 SE (1999) 

AGS: Life Skills English: SE Text (2003) 

AGS: Life Skills English: TE Text (2003) 



Wordly Wise 8 (2006) 

The Great Gatsby (2 nd Semester) 

The Crucible (2 nd Semester) 


JCS CP 1303 English IV Glencoe 

Required 


Glencoe (CA) Reader's Choice Grade 12 (2002) 


Beowulf OR Canterbury Tales (1 st Semester) both online 

Hamlet (1 st Semester) online 

Frankenstein OR Pride and Prejudice (2 nd Semester) both online 

Wuthering Heights OR Crime and Punishment (2 nd Semester) both online 

Optional 





Required 


McDougal Littell (CA) The Language of Literature Grade 12 (2002/2006) 

Hamlet OR Midsummer Night's Dream (1 st Semester) both online 

Pride and Prejudice (1 st Semester) online 

Frankenstein (2 nd Semester) online 

Wuthering Heights OR Crime and Punishment (2 nd Semester) both online 


Required 

Daybook of Critical Reading and Writing: Gr. 12 SE (1999) 

AGS: English of the World of Work (2003) 

AGS: English for the World of Work: TE Text (2003) 



Wordly Wise 9 (1st edition) 

Beowulf (Seamus Heany Translation) (2 nd Semester) 

Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2 nd Semester) online 

Appendix 


Mathematics 

A generic course outline is available for all Non-CP courses that a student can follow with any 

standards based curriculum option. The Math Department Chair must approve curriculum options not 

listed. 

Note: All math course packets are on JCS Online. Please contact the math department chair if a 

student will not be on JCS Online. 

2420 Pre-Algebra 

Glencoe Pre-Algebra (1998) (teacher’s edition optional), or 

AGS Pre-Algebra (1998) (teacher’s edition optional), or 

Pacemaker Pre-Algebra (2001) (workbook optional) 

Note: Pre-Algebra is a remedial high school course and is only available to BASIC level students. 

2049 Algebra I, 0019 Algebra A, 0062 Algebra B 

Glencoe Algebra I Concepts and Applications (2005) (teacher’s edition optional), or 

Videotext Algebra – A Complete Course (Modules A through E) (2005), or 

Teaching Textbooks Algebra, Solutions DVD, or 

Pacemaker Algebra 1 (2001) (workbook optional), or 

AGS Algebra (1998) (teacher’s edition optional) (BASIC ONLY) 

Note: Algebra A and Algebra B meet the same standards as Algebra I but are covered over two 

years and give the students two years of math credit. 

Math-U-See and Keys to Algebra do not meet CA standards for Algebra I and may only be used as a 

supplement. 

7532 Algebra I-P (CP), 2030 Algebra IA, 2009 Algebra IB-P 

Glencoe Algebra CA Edition, (2005) (teacher’s edition optional) 

Note: Algebra IA and Algebra IB-P meet the same standards as Algebra I-P and earn CP credit but 

are covered over two years and give the students two years of math credit. 

Geometry 

7534 CP 

Glencoe Geometry CA Edition, (2005) (teacher’s edition optional) 

2210 Non-CP 

Glencoe Geometry Concepts and Applications, (2004) (teacher’s edition optional) or 

Teaching Textbooks Geometry, Solutions DVD, or 

AGS Geometry (2001) (teacher’s edition optional) (BASIC ONLY) 

Algebra II 

7537 CP 

Glencoe Algebra 2 CA Edition (2005) (teacher’s edition optional) 

Appendix 


2056 Non-CP 

Glencoe Algebra 2 CA Edition (2005) (teacher’s edition optional) or 

Teaching Textbooks Algebra 2, Solutions DVD 

Trig/Pre Calculus 

2529 CP 

Houghton Mifflin Pre-Calculus with Limits (2005) and instructional DVD 

Integrated Math 

4712 Integrated Math I 

Saxon Algebra I (1998), Test Booklet, Solutions Booklet 

0923 Integrated Math IIP 

Saxon Algebra 2 (1991), Test Booklet, Solutions Booklet 

0927 Integrated Math IIIP 

Saxon Advanced Math (1998), Test Booklet, Solutions Booklet 

Note: Integrated Math is a three-year sequence. To receive CP credit, a student must complete all 

three courses in the Saxon curriculum. 

2126 Calculus 

McGraw Hill Calculus Concepts and Connections (2006) 

2106 Basic Math 

AGS Basic Math (2001/2003 wkbk) (teacher’s edition optional) (BASIC ONLY) 

0519 Consumer Math 

AGS Consumer Math (2003) (BASIC ONLY) 

4608 Business Math 

Glencoe Mathematics with Business Application (2004), (teacher’s edition optional), (workbook 

optional) 

Science 

Life Science/Biology 

JCS 2929 CP Biology 

Glencoe (CA) Biology: The Dynamics of Life (2005) SE/TE 

Lab Kit (not listed on Follett) 

Microscope recommended, but optional (not listed on Follett) 

Appendix 


JCS 3340 NCP Life Science 

Glencoe (CA) Biology: An Everyday Experience (2003) SE/TE 

JCS 3391 Basic Life Science 

AGS Biology SE/TE (2000) 

Earth Science / Physical Science 

JCS 7041 CP Earth Science 

Glencoe Earth Science: Geology, the Environment and the Universe (2002) SE/TE 

includes textbook CD-ROM (not listed on Follett) 


JCS 3326 NCP Earth Science 

Glencoe Earth Science: Geology, the Environment and the Universe (2002) SE/TE 

includes textbook CD-ROM (not listed on Follett) 

JCS 3708 Basic Earth / Space Science 

AGS Earth Science (2001) SE/TE 

Chapter Test and Worksheet Answer Keys for the Parent 

7554 Chemistry 

Prentice Hall Chemistry (CA Edition) (2007) 


Social Science 

World History (Grade 10) 

JCS CP 1945 World History (Home Study) 

McDougal Littell (CA) Modern World History: Patterns of Interaction (2003) SE/TE 

Student Course Packet if no Internet access 

JCS Non-CP 1711 World History/Geography (Home Study) 

Prentice Hall World History: The Modern World (2007) SE/TE 


JCS Basic 0676 World History (Home Study) 

AGS World History (2001) SE/TE 


Student Workbook/Answer Key 

American History (Grade 11) 

JCS CP 1942 US History (Home Study) 

McDougal Littell, The Americans: Reconstruction to the 21 st Century (2003) SE/TE 


Appendix 


JCS Non-CP 6865 US History (Home Study) 

Glencoe American Odyssey (2004) SE/TE 


JCS Basic 3915 US History (Home Study) 

AGS United States History (2001) SE/TE 


Student Workbook/Answer Key 

American Government (Grade 12) 

JCS CP 7559 American Government (Home Study) 

Glencoe United States Government: Democracy in Action (2003/2006) 


JCS Non-CP 1710 American Government (Home Study) 

Magruder’s American Government (Pearson Prentice Hall) (2006) 


JCS Basic 5336 American Government (Home Study) 

AGS United States Government (2005) 


Economics (Grade 12) 

JCS CP 2298 Economics (Home Study) 

Glencoe Economics Principles and Practices (2003) 


JCS Non-CP 1790 Economics (Home Study) 

Prentice Hall Economics Principles in Action (2003) 


JCS Basic 7325 Economics (Home Study) 


Appendix 


Appendix 


Appendix 


J. ACRONYMS 

AA 

AC 

ADs 

API/AYP 

APLUS+ 

ASVAB 

BTSA 

CAHSEE 

CALPADS 

CAPA/CMA 

CBO 

CC 

CCSA 

CDE 

COE 

CP 

CST/CSTs 

CSTP 

CSU 

CT 

CTE 

CUE/CTAP 

DC 

DD 

DEN 

EF 

EL/ELL 

ELT 

EMR 

EOC 

ESLRs 

EUs 

FAFSA 

FL 

GED 

H/SS 

H.S. 

HQT 

HS 

IC-E/IC-T 

ICT 

IEP 

ILP 

IMT 

Alpine Academy 

Academy 

Assistant Director(s) 

Academic Performance Index/ Adequate Yearly Progress 

The Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services 

Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery 

Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment 

California High School Exit Examination 

California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System 

California Alternate Performance Assessment/California Modified Assessment 

Chief Business Officer 

Community College 

California Charter School Association 


County Office of Education 

College Prep 

California Standards Test/California Standards Tests 

California Standards for the Teaching Profession 

California State University 

Curriculum Team 

Career Technical Education 

Computer-Using Educators/California Technology Assistance Project 

Department Chair 

DataDirector 

Discovery Education Network 


English Learner/English Language Learner 

Educational Leadership Team 

Education Materials Resources 

End-of-Course 

Expected Schoolwide Learning Results 

Educational Units 

Free Application for Federal Student Aid 


General Educational Development Test 

History/Social Science 


Highly Qualified Teacher 

Home Study 

Innovation Center-Encinitas/Innovation Center-Temecula 

Information and Communications Technology(ies) 

Individualized Education Plan 

Individual Learning Plan 

Information, Media and Technology Skills 

Appendix 


JCS 


LC 

Learning Center 

LMS 

Learning Management System 

M.S. 


MA 

Master Agreement or Murrieta Academy 

MAP 

Measures of Academic Progress (also referred to as NWEA MAP) 

M/MHSA/MMSA Murrieta/Murrieta High School Academy/ Murrieta Middle School Academy 

MLC 

Murrieta Learning Center 

MMRC/ RC Murrieta Meeting and Resource Center/Resource Center 

MO 

Main Office 

NCA North County Academy (closed 2009-10) 

NCP 

Non-College Prep 

OC 

Orange County 

PD 

Professional Development 

PFs 

Exchange Public Folders 

PLC/PLCs Professional Learning Community(ies) 

PLC 

Phoenix Learning Center 

PIP 

Professional Improvement Plan 

PSAT 

Preliminary SAT 

PTO 

Parent Teacher Organization 

PVA 

Pine Valley Academy 

R/RS 

Riverside County 

RW 

ReportWriter 

SBE 

State Board of Education 

S/SCI 

Science 

SARC 

School Accountability Report Card 

SD/SDA 

San Diego or San Diego County/San Diego Academy 

SDCOE 

San Diego County Office of Education 

SDLC 

San Diego Learning Center 

SDSA 

San Diego Science Alliance 

SIS/SP SIS Student Information System/School Pathways Student Information System 

S-L 

Service Learning 

SLCs 

Small School Learning Communities 

SN 

Safety Net 

SP 

School Pathways 

SPED 


SPSA 

Single Plan for Student Achievement 

SS or (H/SS) Social Studies (History/Social Science) 

SST 


STAR 

Standardized Testing and Reporting 

TTP 

Teacher Technology Proficiency Portfolio 

UC/UCSD/USD University of CA/ University of CA San Diego/University of San Diego 

VAPA 

Visual and Performing Arts 

VC 

Vocational College 

VCI 

Vendor Course Instruction 

WASC 

Western Association of Schools and Colleges 

WIGS 

Wildly Important Goals Schoolwide 

Appendix 


K. JCS TERMINOLOGY 

The following is a list of terms commonly used within Julian Charter School: 

Academy (AC) 

Assistant Director (AD) 

Curriculum Teams/Curriculum 

Team Leads (CT) 

Department Chair (DC) 


(EF) 

Educational Materials 

Request (EMR) 

Educational Units (EUs) 

Elluminate 

Enrichment Clubs 

(eClubs) 

Foundational Level 

High School (H.S.) 

High School Hub 

Home Study (HS) 

Academy classes serve grades K-8, 6-8, 9-12, 7-12, or other variations, 

depending on the site. Each Academy has its own schedule, and classes 

meet two to four times each week according to the site schedule. All 

Academy classes are comprehensive classes where an entire subject 

(either core or elective) is assigned and evaluated by the teacher or 

subject-area specialist. Home study students are limited to no more than 

two classes per semester at an Academy. 

An assistant director is the direct supervisor for JCS educational 

facilitators and learning center/academy or special ed personnel. 

The K-8 curriculum team is available to support EFs and parent-teachers 

in language arts, math, science, social studies, and technology. 

The 9-12 department chairs are available to support EFs, specialists, 

students, and parents in English, math, science, and social studies. 

An educational facilitator is a credentialed teacher who works with 

home study parents as a partner, facilitating the educational program. 

An Educational Materials Request is the process for requesting textbooks, 

resources, or other supplementary materials not available in the 

Resource Center. 

JCS grants Educational Units to students for additional learning classes 

and materials. EUs may be used for educational materials (EMR) and 

outside classes (VCI). 

During a webinar (web seminar held in a virtual classroom), students and 

teachers can communicate via text chat or microphone/speakers. Other 

tools include a virtual whiteboard to either write or type on and the 

ability to simultaneously view (and edit) documents, video, etc. 

K-8 eClubs provide opportunities for students to engage in a variety of 

activities and learning experiences. Additional eClubs provide support 

for the parent-teacher. The eClub calendar is available on the web site. 

The foundational level of study is for students with IEPs and focuses 

on curriculum pertaining to the student’s IEP goals. 

The high school (9-12) program. 

The high school hub is located in the Murrieta Meeting Center. The 

“hub” contains career, college, the Riverside INSITE program, and other 

high school resources. 

Home Study is a JCS program option where the parent is the primary 

teacher under the tutelage of a credentialed teacher. Each home study 

student is assigned an educational facilitator who meets with the parent 

and student at least once every 20 school days for a minimum of one 

hour per student per meeting to review assignments, answer questions, 

assess progress, and assign the next 20 days of assignments. In between 

meetings, the facilitator is available for consultation through phone 

and/or e-mail. 

Appendix 


ICT Literacy Maps or 

ICT Maps 

Independent Study (IS) 

INSITE 

JCS Online 

Learning Center (LC) 

Learning Log 

Learning Period (LP) 

Master Agreement (MA) 

Murrieta Meeting and 

Resource Center 

(MMRC) 

Paperwork Packets 

(Envelopes) 

Parent-Teacher 

ICT Literacy Maps illustrate the intersection between Information and 

Communication Technology (ICT) Literacy and core academic subjects 

including English, mathematics, science and social studies (civics/government, 

geography, economics, history). The maps enable educators to 

gain concrete examples of how ICT Literacy can be integrated into core 

subjects, while making the teaching and learning of core subjects more 

relevant to the demands of the 21st century. 

Independent Study is a JCS program option where less of the teaching 

responsibilities are placed on the parent and more of the decisionmaking 

is handled by a credentialed teacher. Each independent study 

student is assigned an educational facilitator who meets with the parent 

and student either once per week for a minimum of one hour or once 

every two weeks for a minimum of two hours. 

INSITE is an alternative high school program housed at the MMRC and 

SDLC. Students work closely with a highly qualified teacher on a more 

frequent basis (two to four days a week) than traditional home study 

students and courses are taken in an alternative structure. CP, NCP and 

Basic courses are offered through the program. 

The learning management system used by the home study, high school 

department. 

Learning Centers typically offer one-day-a-week classes for K-8 students. 

These classes can either be a comprehensive core class, where all 

assignments and evaluations come from the learning center teacher, or 

supplemental core classes where only a portion of a subject is covered. 

Core classes include outside assignments. In addition, enrichment 

classes are also offered as electives. 

The Learning Log is kept by the parent/student and reflects attendance, 

main subject studied for each day, and what concepts were studied. The 

Learning Log is also the place to document STAR Testing, sixth grade 

camp, field trips, and final exams. 

A learning period is approximately 20 days with learning period dates set 

by the administration. LP dates are attendance periods. 

This is the semester-long critical legal contract between JCS, the student, 

the Educational Facilitator/Advisor and the parent that documents the 

course of study, curriculum, and the time, manner and frequency of the 

monthly meetings. This document is updated and signed every semester, 

and is also updated and resubmitted any time a significant change is 

made. 

The (Murrieta) Meeting and Resource Center is a large, modular 

workspace that can accommodate large group meetings, family 

meetings, or other group activities. In addition, the site houses the 

resource center, a library, computer lab, the High School Hub, 

conference rooms, special education, and administrative spaces. 

Collected four times throughout the year. Each packet includes the 

assignments and samples for two to three learning periods. 

The Parent-Teacher nomenclature reflects the fact that the parent is the 

primary teacher; used primarily in the K-8 program. 

Appendix 


PLC/Forum 

Portfolio Course of 

Study 

Quarterly Meetings (Q 

Meetings) 

Each Professional Learning Community (PLC) meets monthly in a variety 

of ways, including face-to-face at the forums. 

High school core courses may be taken as a portfolio option for students 

and families that want to use alternative curriculum or develop a course 

of study independent of the specialist-designed course of study. 

Portfolio approval requires a pre-course meeting to review the course of 

study proposed. Assessments include the course final exam and a 

mid/final portfolio meeting to assess learning. 

Quarterly meetings are designed for professional growth for parent 

teachers. Quarterly Meetings are held in several counties and include 

Back to School and Preview events in addition to Q2 and Q3 meetings. 

ReportWriter (RW) ReportWriter is a computer program that enables Educational 

Facilitators to claim attendance, create assignments for students, report 

grades, and print report cards. The program provides access to the 

California State Standards and shows the alignment between the 

curricula and the standards. 

Resource Center (RC) The Resource Center is a large warehouse filled with over a million 

dollars worth of educational resources such as curriculum, textbooks, 

teacher guides, manipulatives, learning tools/aids, kits, reproducibles, 

and other student/teacher/parent resources. The adjacent library has 

other resources available for checkout. 

Safety Net 

The Safety Net program provides guidance, support, and feedback to 

educational facilitators, advisors, and teachers about students and 

student achievement; team works collaboratively to evaluate student 

progress and make recommendations, as needed, for intervention. 

SP Student Information The student information system is directly linked to ReportWriter and 

System (SP SIS) 

provides access to all of the student information kept electronically. 

Special Education (SPED) The Special Education Department oversees special education, 504s, 

speech and language and other special education services; administrative 

offices are located across the street from the San Diego Academy. 

Specialist 

A specialist is a content area expert who works with high schoolers in 

core content subjects: language arts, math, science, and social studies. 

Vendor Course 

Vendor Course Instruction may be used for class instruction (over one 

Instruction (VCI) 

hundred choices) outside of JCS. 

Work Sample 

A work sample, signed and dated by the student, is an example of 

student work, representative of the depth and breadth of understanding 

or standard of work. The EF/coordinator collects one assignment per 

subject per learning period as part of the requirements for a California 

home study/independent study program. 

Appendix 


Appendix 


L. KEY EVIDENCE LIST BY CATEGORY 

GENERAL/ESLRS SUPPORT 

• Learning Period Checklist 


• Friendly Standards 

• Budget 

• Board Policies 

• Governing Bodies Records 

• Cabinet Agendas/Minutes 

• ELT Agendas/Minutes 

• SARC 

• Student Locations Map 

PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

• Schoolwide Goals 

• Technology Plan 

• Strategic Plan(s) 

• WASC Timeline/Action Plan(s) 

INTERVENTION MATERIALS 

• CAHSEE Intervention List/Form 

• Safety Net Resource List 

• CLO Math Intervention 

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS 

• Four-Year Graduation Plans 

• High School Course List 

• Grad Requirements Check-off Sheets High 

School Course List 

• Course Catalog Descriptions 

• “a-g” Course Descriptions 

• Counselor Packets 

SITES 

• Safety Plan 

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS 

• Student and Parent Surveys 

• Grad Surveys 

• Staff Survey 

OBSERVATION INSTRUMENTS 

• Classroom Observation Protocol Matrix 

• Student Interview Form 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

• TTPs 

• PIPs 

• PD List 

• Guiding Data Questions Info and 

Organizers 

STUDENT DATA 

• DD Reports 

• Raw Data/Reports 

• Sample Teacher/PLC Data 

PLCS/DEPARTMENTS 

• Agendas, Notes, Observations 

• Forum Agendas 

• Course of Study Sample(s) 

• Common Assessment Sample(s) 

• Curriculum Maps 

STUDENT WORK/RECORDS 

• Student Work Analysis Guide 

• Rubric(s)/Work Samples 


ONLINE RESOURCES 

• Julian Charter School: http://www.juliancharterschool.org/ 

• School Pathways: https://julian.spsis.com 

• Staff Wiki: http://www.jcs.wiki.juliancharterschool.org/ 

• Parent Wiki: http://parents.jcs.wiki.juliancharterschool.org/ 

• Elluminate Archived Session(s): 

http://connect.juliancharterschool.org/recordings.html 

• JCS Google Docs: http://docs.google.com/a/juliancharterschool.org/ 

• DataDirector: http://www.achievedata.com/zoom/ 

• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com 

• Twitter: http://twitter.com/JulianCharter 

• DataDirector: http://www.achievedata.com/zoom 

Appendix 


Appendix

2009-2010 Self-Study WASC Action Plan - Julian Charter School

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?