Scores updated for 2026!

Ackerman Charter

Placer County school performance

Summary

Reading and math results average to the 83rd percentile among California school districts.

61.7% of students met California's reading standard, but it is slowly trending down.Trending down

53.1% of students met California's math standard, and it is trending down slightly.Trending down

Proficiency Stats
Current Reading Proficiency61.7%
Current Math Proficiency53.1%
District Reading Rank175 / 977 (82nd percentile)
District Math Rank165 / 977 (83rd percentile)
Other Stats
Student / Teacher Ratio22:1
Spend per Student$13,157
Schools in District1
Student Enrollment606
Low-Income Students152 (25.1%)
English Learners24 (4.0%)

Test score trends

2024 - 2026

Reading rose 0.2 points from last year and fell 3.3 points over the full period. Math rose 0.6 points from last year and fell 1.5 points over the full period.

Reading -3.3 percentage pointsTrend down•Math -1.5 percentage pointsTrend down
Changes shown: Reading 2024–2026; Math 2024–2026.

Board Members

nameelectedup for re-election

Michael Belles

Board President

[email protected]
20222026This year!

Mark Hallbourg

Board Clerk

[email protected]
N/A2028

Aaron Finato

Board Member

[email protected]
N/A2028

Chrissy Agee

Board Trustee

[email protected]
N/A2028

Clawson

Board Member

20222026This year!

Board website

Expand for details on low-income and english learner performance

Reading Proficiency Scores

Comparison of low-income and English learner groups using district-level CAASPP proficiency data.

Low-Income vs Non-Low-Income

Low-income students trail other students by 17.2 points in reading. It narrowed over the period shown.

Low-Income
Non-Low-Income
Low-Income -2.8 percentage pointsTrend down•
Non-Low-Income -8.5 percentage pointsTrend down

English Learners vs English Native

15.4% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 63.1% of English-only students. The gap narrowed as English-learner results rose and English-only results fell.

English Learners
English Native
English Learners +7.7 percentage pointsTrend up•
English Native -3.1 percentage pointsTrend down

Math Proficiency Scores

Comparison of low-income and English learner groups using district-level CAASPP proficiency data.

Low-Income vs Non-Low-Income

Low-income students trail other students by 10.8 points in math. It narrowed over the period shown.

Low-Income
Non-Low-Income
Low-Income +5.1 percentage pointsTrend up•
Non-Low-Income -9.0 percentage pointsTrend down

English Learners vs English Native

15.4% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 54.6% of English-only students. The gap narrowed as English-learner results held steady and English-only results fell.

English Learners
English Native
English Learners 0.0 percentage points•
English Native -1.3 percentage pointsTrend down

District School Map

Schools in this district, color-coded by reading proficiency.

Loading district map...

Hover over a school marker to see details

Schools

Understanding this district

How does Ackerman Charter rank in California?

Ackerman Charter ranks No. 175 of 977 in reading and No. 165 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.

How do low-income students in Ackerman Charter compare with other districts?

Low-income reading proficiency is 48.2%, compared with 37.6% at a typical California elementary district. In math, it is 44.7%, compared with 28.2%.

See student-group results

Which districts should I compare with Ackerman Charter?

Elementary districts in Placer County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.

2026 proficiency
DistrictMathReading
Ackerman CharterThis district53.1%61.7%
Placer Hills Union Elementary47.8%52.8%
Foresthill Union Elementary29.4%44.6%
Compare these districts
How we compare low-income results

“Typical” is the median across 444 California elementary districts with 2026 results, a reported low-income population, and at least 20 low-income tested students in each subject. Each district counts once. This compares proficiency for low-income students, rather than the gap between income groups.