School Accounting Software

Posts Tagged ‘schools’

In today’s technologically driven world, children’s futures are no longer shaped by only their ability to learn such basics as reading, writing, science, and math. High tech learning must be achieved in order to ensure children have every opportunity to succeed as adults. Now, e-learning is becoming an important part of the classroom for many schools. However, more schools need to implement e-learning into their educational programs.

E-learning in schools can include a number of different types of technology-enhanced learning (TEL), where technology is utilized to support and enhance the learning process. When a teacher incorporates e-Learning into their classroom, children of all ages have access to the most current and best e-learning material in such study areas as math, science, and reading. Programs are designed and developed by leading e-learning providers and qualified instructional designers, and reviewed by Educational professionals. Schools can incorporate online courses into their curriculum. Quality e-learning programs are designed to engage children at an appropriate level where they can obtain a wealth of knowledge.

E-Learning lessons are commonly designed to assist students with working through information for better understanding and to help students perform specific functions. Information based e-Learning content communicates information to the student. For instance, content such as math, sciences, and history, focus on the factual information. With performance functions, lessons include the students performing a specific skill.

E-Learning can provide a number of benefits for students, teachers, and parents. It can provide a quality education at an affordable price. The students will acquire the best information from experts in the field they are studying. E-learning is also self-paced so students have the chance to ask questions and review information as many times as they want or need. Teachers can work with their students on specific skills and children can access the self-paced programs independently.

E-learning programs allow students in rural areas that may be isolated to receive the same quality of information as more urban areas. Teachers can customize courses to meet the students and their teaching needs. They can also meet online with other teachers to discuss learning development strategies. Parents will also be encouraged to get more involved in their children’s education. Corporations can also make use of e-learning by providing charitable donations to the schools such as computers and learning software.

E-Learning is basically Internet-facilitated learning. Mechanisms can include the distribution of content in numerous formats, as well as an online community of learners, subject matter developers, and knowledgeable experts. E-learning provides faster learning at reduced costs, increased access to innovative learning programs, and accountability for all those involved in the learning process.

More school boards are choosing to participate in e-learning programs. When they participate, they will have access to thousands of resources as well as valuable software programs designed to help students learn. With the world moving to a technology based way of working and living, the importance of e-learning has never been more important for both very young children and teens. Education must adapt to a technology changing world.

In my four years of working at EvaluNet, and visiting literally hundreds of schools across the country, I often come across schools that have spent tens of thousands of rands on educational software and hardware that was promised to be of immense value but turned out to be a massively useless white elephant.

The problem lies not in the actual tool or resource being purchased. The problem lies in the phrase “aggressive marketing tactics” combined with the phrase “lack of aftersales support and training”.

The reality is that many companies have popped up over the years offering educational software and hardware tools that in many cases are actually very good at doing what they were designed to do.

Interactive whiteboards (IWB’s) as an example, are an excellent means to engage learners in a stimulating manner. A Science teacher for example, is able to use the software tools loaded on an IWB to create exciting, interactive presentations of molecules and atoms moving around. Instead of showing learners drawings of an atomic model, the teacher is able to literally show the learners exactly how the atoms move on the IWB, which is infinitely more interesting than looking at a black chalk board.

I don’t think there is anyone who could argue against the benefits that a tool such as an IWB has to offer. It’s obvious that in this day an age, anything that can capture a child’s attention is something that should be expanded upon.

However, the sad reality is that when I visit schools who have previously purchased IWB’s, I am given account after account of how the IWB is hardly used by any of the teachers. Many schools are sitting with IWB’s that cost anything from R10,000 – R25,000 per board. If not used, then certainly a BIG white elephant. The number one reason given: the teachers don’t know what to do with the board.

The example of the ‘redundant interactive white board’ can be applied to many other products that ruthless educational vendors irresponsibly market to schools. From curriculum-based software to skills development tools, anything that a school buys and then doesn’t use is a waste of precious school funds.

Blame the school! The teachers are lazy.

This is one of the first excuses an educational vendor will give you when asked why some schools buy their products and then hardly use them. Another one of my favourite excuses are: the teachers are not willing to learn anything new.

If you’re selling something, the probabilty is that you think it is the best thing since sliced bread. What you must remember, is that educational vendors have convinced themselves that their product is going to benefit anyone who purchases it. They love their product. They’re passionate about it. They see the value and they know EXACTLY how they would implement it if they were you (the customer).

At the end of the day, the bottom line for the vendor is their profit. This is understandble – they’re running a business, not a charity. And that’s OKAY. You shouldn’t point fingers at them.

However, it is grossly irresponsible to sell a product to a school when you know that the product requires ongoing training and support , and you cannot afford to offer that ongoing training and support. To sell a product to a school, and expect them to implement it on their own without assistance, is just not cricket.

There is probably nothing a principal hates more than being romanced into a sale through a well delivered sales pitch, only to discover that the product they purchased actually requires ongoing support that the vendor is just not willing to give.

Beware of: The Box Droppers

Many good educational software and hardware products on the market require ongoing support from the supplier. Beware of vendors who sell you their products and then disappear, only to resurface some time later with another “amazing” product that is going to cost more money and “solve all your problems”.

If you are the one signing that quotation, make sure that the vendor is willing to put in writing that (a) the product is so easy to use that it requires absolutely no training or support, OR (2) the product does in fact require training and support and that the vendor is, firstly, capable and willing to train you to use the product and, secondly, will help you implement it at your school.

Beware of: The Trainers

Most good educational software and hardware vendors do offer training on the use of their products. “Great!” you may say. Yes sure, I agree with you, but put it this way:

You’re learning to drive for the first time. You hire a driving instructor to teach you how to drive. He shows you which pedals to push, how to use the indicators, where to put the fuel and how to start the engine. And then he leaves and sends you an invoice for a few hundred rands.

What he has failed to do is help you get into the car and make it move forward. And he could only have done this by giving you the keys and putting you in the drivers seat, guiding you and instructing you as you go.

Many vendors train teachers where to click. Few train then how to implement.

Do you think that a teacher knows exactly how to implement an interactive white board after a 60-minute point and click training session? I don’t think so.

Try and find: The Customer Service-orientated Gems

As a school making a decision about what educational software or hardware to purchase, you should ask yourself: “Does this vendor care about my school?”

Vendors who offer service and implementation plans – in writing – are the vendors you can normally count on to deliver on their promises and the expectations set during their sales pitch.

Service and implementation plans are relatively unheard of in South Africa. However it’s a simple concept where a company promises to deliver ‘product implementation’ as opposed to simple ‘product training’. And the implementation plan should obviously always be shown in writing.

Where does the buck end?

There is an ongoing debate as to who is ultimately responsible to ensure that a product is properly used by a school.

Some will say that it is entirely up to the teacher to use a product to it’s maximum benefit. So what they’ll do is train the teacher where to click, and then expect the teacher to come up with a plan of implementation, i.e. you’ve had your training, now it’s up to you.

Others say that it is the responsibility of the Department of Education to ensure that teachers are well versed in the use of products made available to them. The problem is that there are thousands of educational software and hardware products available to teachers, so how is the department expected to keep up with it all while trying to deal with other issues of their own?

I say that it is entirely the responsibility of the educational vendor to ensure that schools use their products effectively. As the vendor, you should know your product inside out, and more importantly, you should know exactly how to implement it and make ongoing use of it. Vendors should be legally required to share this knowledge and provide product implementation plans to school customers.

Vendors should use their initiative and setup workshops, user groups, online resources and in every way possible make sure that their school customers are shown the respect that they deserve.

Vendors should stop selling to schools, and rather start investing in them.

Originally published on Teacher’s Monthly.

The kindergarten through 8th grade virtual school was created in the Florida schools in 2003. It was sold to lawmakers as a great way to save money, offering coursework to replace on-campus teachers and classrooms at a savings of $700 per student. Only students who had attended the Florida schools the previous year were eligible to participate at a cost to the Florida schools of $4,800 per student. The savings over physical classroom instruction for the Florida schools was expected to be $700,000 with a 1,000 student enrollment in the virtual school program.

Though in theory the money saved by the Florida schools was substantial, someone forgot to tell the rules to Jim Horne (then education commissioner). He allowed kindergarten and first grade students, who had never attended the Florida schools previously, to enroll in the virtual school. These newly eligible students accounted for 27 percent of all students enrolled at a taxpayer cost of $4,800 per student. All projected savings were lost, and it ended up costing the Florida schools an additional $653,000, according to a March 14th article in the Palm Beach Post.

The Florida schools have found the virtual school a success, even though a costly one in the beginning. All participating students must meet the Florida Sunshine State Standards and must take the state-required Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT).

In March, the House education committee approved HB 799, which expands the K-8 virtual school program. If passed by the Senate, all home and privately schooled children in Florida will be allowed to participate in the virtual school program with no cap on the number of students enrolled.

Currently, the virtual program is limited to 1,384 students at a $5,200 per student cost for a total of $7.2 million funding cost to the Florida schools. Though few privately schooled children are expected to enroll (a parent must be present during use of the program), there are currently 52,000 children in Florida being home schooled. The expanded program, which provides parents with a computer, books, software and online access to teachers, could easily cost the Florida schools about $312 million with a per student cost increase to almost $6,000.

Such a cost to the taxpayers and the Florida schools may force lawmakers to place an enrollment cap on the virtual school program. Backers believe the Senate will insist upon it, since they expect a tight budget this year.

The bill also requires all program providers to be nonprofit. Current contracted providers are the Virginia-based K12 and Maryland-based Connections Academy. The Florida subsidiaries of these two firms are currently making a transition to nonprofit status in compliance with HB 799. Though the subsidiaries will be nonprofit, they will be allowed to continue purchasing supplies and equipment for the virtual school program from their for-profit parent companies. The bill does not require competitive bidding by these providers.

The expanded virtual school bill, HB 799, is sponsored by Representative Will Weatherford (R-Wesley Chapel). He believes that the parents of home and privately schooled children pay taxes, and their children should have equal opportunity to participate in this state-paid program of the Florida schools, too.

In November 2005, Governor Rick Perry initiated the $10 million grant program for paying bonuses to school employees who have performed above expectations in raising student performance levels. One hundred Texas schools have been invited to participate in the Governor’s Educator Excellence Award Program. To date, 98 have accepted the invitation.

The chosen Texas Schools have a high percentage of economically disadvantaged students. Each school has demonstrated high levels of student achievement or marked student improvement. Each has been rated exemplary or recognized, which are the two top academic ratings that can be awarded to a school under the Texas schools’ accountability system; or they have shown strong performance gains in the areas of mathematics and reading.

Each school may apply for a three-year grant as follows:

• Schools with 449 students or less — $60,000 a year grant,
• With 450 to 699 students — $90,000 a year grant,
• 700 to 1,199 student — $135,000 a year grant, or
• 1,200 students or more — $180,000 a year grant.

To maintain eligibility for the grant program, the participating Texas schools must receive ratings of academically acceptable or better. Recommended bonus amounts range from $3,000 to $10,000 per individual.

Each school may develop a customized incentive pay program that fits their individual school, as long as the teachers are involved in its development and under the following guidelines:

• 75 percent of the grant money must be used for classroom teacher incentive pay;
• A classroom teacher must be employed by the Texas schools district and spend an average of four hours each day teaching in an academic setting or career/technology instructional setting;
• Award recipients must improve student performance and exceed academic growth expectations,
• Performance must be determined using objective and quantifiable measures, such as local benchmarking systems, end-of-course tests, and other assessments, and
• Recipients must have collaborated with other faculty and staff members to improve overall student performance at the school.

Athletic coaches are not eligible for the program, unless they also teach and qualify under the classroom teacher guidelines.

The customized incentive pay plans may take into account a teacher’s assignment in hard-to-staff areas that are specific to individual school districts. A teacher’s initiative and commitment to other activities that directly result in improved student performance also may be considered, such as tutoring students after school.

Some of the possible uses for the remaining 25 percent of the grant money are:

• To provide incentive pay for other school personnel who contribute to increased student achievement,
• Provide training to teachers,
• Support activities for mentoring,
• Teacher induction programs,
• Signing bonuses for teachers in high-need subject areas,
• Activities that support common planning time and curriculum development,
• Proven programs to recruit and retain teachers, and
• Stipends for teachers who participate in after school or Saturday programs, which are designed to improve teaching and learning.

Though 12 percent of the Texas schools’ districts have some type of teacher incentive pay program, this is the first state program in almost 20 years. When Texas schools achieve exceptional results, the principals always give credit to their teachers and staffs. The Intent of the Governor’s excellence award program is to say a very sincere “thank you” to the teachers and staff who go the extra mile to help students succeed.

This information on Texas schools is brought to you by www.schoolsk-12.com.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation made an investment of $21 million in Chicago Schools to strengthen the students’ preparation for college. The gift funds the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative, which will provide for major improvements in high school curriculum and instruction to ensure the students are prepared to succeed in college and career.

Under this initiative, the coursework structure and teaching methods of 50 high schools will be transformed. The goal is to give all students access to a high quality education, while keeping them motivated throughout their high school years. Courses will be offered to capture student interest, while providing them with the knowledge needed to graduate and go on to college or another form of post-high school education. The initiative also will provide teachers who are well prepared and able to inspire these young people with a love of learning and desire to excel.

Like many other large urban districts, traditional high schools in the Chicago schools struggle to provide challenging and relevant coursework with the personalized instruction necessary for all students. Currently in the Chicago schools, only 47 percent of graduates go on to college, while 46 percent of 9th graders dropout before graduation. Many of those who continue on to college find they need remedial classes to cover content they should have mastered in high school.

The Gates Foundation chose Chicago schools to be one of the first big cities to meet this challenge for today’s youth. The Chicago schools were eager to partner in this endeavor.

Initially, Chicago schools will implement the transformation plan with 14 high schools, starting with the 9th grade. The redesign initiative then expands to other grades and to 36 additional high schools over the next three years. The initial 14 schools are:

• Bowen Environmental Studies Team (BEST)
• Carver Military Academy
• Chicago Military Academy at Bronzeville
• Clark Academic Prep High School
• Crane High School
• Dunbar Vocational High School
• Dyett High School
• Fenger Academy High School
• John Hope College Preparatory High School
• Kenwood Academy
• Wendell Phillips High School
• School of the Arts, South Shore Campus
• Mose Vines Preparatory Academy at Orr Campus
• George Washington High School

The goals of the broad redesign initiative are to improve classroom instruction, provide more options and opportunities for students and their parents, and to make Chicago schools performance more accountable to parents and the community. The five most significant challenges to be addressed by the Chicago schools are strengthening the curriculum, increasing rigor and relevance of coursework, adding depth to course content, improving professional development, and providing better school-based support.

The curriculum areas of focus are English, mathematics and science with teachers providing more instructional support in these subjects. A new school accountability tool for parents is the scorecard. The card tracks a school’s performance in areas, such as graduation rate, school climate, teacher information, and student achievement. One area of improvement of benefit to teachers, students and parents, alike, is the recruitment of and professional support for high quality principals for the Chicago schools.

The initiative is one of the most thoughtful and comprehensive approaches to high school reform in the nation with its aim of raising expectations and preparing every student for success after high school.

The initiative gives Chicago schools the potential to significantly impact the quality of education students receive in high school and put them on the right track to succeed after graduation.

This information on Chicago schools is brought to you by www.schoolsk-12.com.

Michigan Schools from Ann Arbor to DeWitt are looking for ways to stretch their budgets, meet national accountability standards, and still provide children with practical skills for the futures. The ways different districts of Michigan Schools are approaching this dilemma are as varied as the schools themselves. From sharing classroom space to outsourcing work, the job of running a public school system the size of Michigan Schools is changing with the times.

FREE TECHNOLOGY FOR MICHIGAN SCHOOLS

Every year each district in the Michigan Schools must dip into their operational budget to pay licensing fees for district computers to use the Microsoft Office® applications. Last year that cost each Michigan Schools’ district about $24,000; a price tag that is expected to double for the upcoming school year. DeWitt Public Schools has found a way around that. Microsoft’s OpenOffice.org Project allows a district to download the entire software for free. All Michigan Schools can take advantage of this cost savings and install the application on all computers, as well as in the students’ homes.

DeWitt Schools Superintendent Tina Templin says that, “Our students will be expected to be versatile in a variety of technology tools upon their graduation, not just the one application promoted in the states.” Open Office is considered the global standard. All Michigan Schools are likely to be interested in cost saving software that prepares students for success.

OUTSOURCING TRANSPORTATION AT MICHIGAN SCHOOLS

As Michigan Schools look for ways to eliminate expenses, it’s no huge surprise that transportation costs are high on the list. Operations Director of Grand Ledge Public Schools, Matt Losch, reports that his district spends an average of $420 yearly for each student. That means over $2 million for a single district of the Michigan Schools. With rising fuel costs, Michigan Schools are actively seeking solutions.

Some of the answer include: replacing older buses with more fuel efficient models, outsourcing dispatch operations, replacing employed mechanics with a private contractor, and purchasing in larger quantities. The outsourcing alone is expected to save up to $100,000 by eliminating salaries and benefits.

Some of Michigan Schools’ Grand Ledge Board Members expressed their concerns about contractor’s bids, and the need to lay off employees. Representatives of the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) attended several board meetings on the topic and also expressed concerns. Losch has said that any mechanic laid off will have a chance to interview with the selected contractor.

Schools around the nation are feeling pressure to invest the time and money needed to meet No Child Left Behind requirements for reaching higher standards and reducing class sizes. Michigan Schools endeavor to balance rising costs, greater technological requirements, and the ever-present issues of racial disparity. While cost effective methods like those listed are crucial for Michigan Schools, officials realize that they are just one part of the big picture.

Three candidates are running for the post of Superintendent of Public Instruction for the Arizona schools in the September 12th election. Current Superintendent Tom Horne is running as the unopposed Republican candidate, seeking his second term in office. Two Democrats are challenging Horne — Slade Mead and Jason Williams. Mead is a sports agent, a former state senator, a former Kyrene School District board member, and a former Republican. Williams is a former middle school math and science teacher, and a former executive director of a nonprofit organization that recruits teachers for low-income and rural areas.

Two major issues that will be facing the newly elected superintendent are the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) tests and school vouchers.

AIMS. This year was the first to require all high school seniors in the Arizona schools to pass the AIMS test in order to graduate. The candidates have differing views on AIMS and its use.

Horne is a strong advocate of the graduation requirement, believing that it makes students accountable for what they learn. He commented that it makes Arizona schools students take their education seriously, because they will not be handed a diploma if they fake their way through school.

Williams would like the graduation requirement eliminated and to use AIMS as a benchmark for learning, gauging just how well Arizona schools students are retaining knowledge. He believes this would take the pressure off students, when used as a diagnostic tool. Williams disagrees with Horne concerning students taking learning more seriously because of AIMS. He noted that 15,000 students, who enrolled as Arizona schools freshmen in 2002, had dropped out of school before the Class of 2006 graduated.

Mead agrees with Williams that AIMS would make a better assessment tool for the Arizona schools and that the passing requirement for graduation be eliminated. He has stated that the current administration of AIMS is a “sham” with only a passing grade requirement of 59 percent. A “C” average student within the Arizona schools only need answer six mathematics questions correctly out of 56. He also would like to see AIMS administered as the state of Wyoming does its testing — students take the test directly on a computer, the results are instantly scored, and then the scores are immediately sent to the teachers for evaluation.

School Vouchers. Another hot button for many educators, parents and the community are school vouchers, whereby some students may attend private schools funded by the taxpayers. Under a newly passed budget, that state has authorized $5 million in private school vouchers for disabled and foster-care students. All three candidates are opposed to vouchers for private schools.

Incumbent Horne stated that Arizona schools already are the leading proponent for parental choice in the nation, with charter schools, open enrollment policies, and tax credits. He noted that the Manhattan Institute ranks the Arizona schools as number one out of 50 in parental choice. He also pointed out that the state constitution prohibits the use of public funds for religious or private schools.

Because the state legislature already passed the use of school vouchers into law, Mead only stated his opposition to them and that, if elected, he would ensure that the Arizona schools accounted for every cent used for school vouchers.

Williams pointed out that private schools do not automatically do a better job than public ones. He sees the voucher system as a way of giving up on public education in the Arizona schools.

Though these are the two hot-button issues in this upcoming election, undoubtedly there are many more for which the parents and communities of the Arizona schools should be concerned. Ensure that you check out the three candidates and what they have to say about all of the issues — and make your voice heard in September by voting for the candidate of your choice.

Accounts are an integral part of every industry today. They have become the company’s valuable asset as all dealings, transactions and company data is recoded, analyzed and verified by them. Such a position is important and demands utmost integrity and honesty. If you are interested in getting an accounting degree that can lead to a respectable position is a reputed company, it will be a good career move.

Many colleges and Universities are offering Bachelor’s and Master’s Accounting degree program that helps the individual get trained to move ahead in their accounting career and set the foundations for a long term success.

An accountant’s job is to analyze and verify the data that is a result of long discussions is managers, stake holders and owners, taken for the advancement and progress of the company. An accounting job is a much respectable profession and without an accountant a company will certainly fail. To ensure that you secure an accountants position in a big company it is important to get a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in Accounting.

If you think you have a genuine interest and passion for numbers, then an accounting course is best suited to you. There are many Canadian accounting schools that offer you the several accounting programs.

Do your research completely about the different schools and colleges before joining the course. A good accounting school will of course train you to achieve a fascinating career and endow you with understanding and knowledge required to make a business run profitably.

An accountant has to prepare statements and reports that summarize a business’ financial weakness and strength. There are certain software too that are used to learn accounting better, for instance Peachtree or QuickBooks. Once you are through with the course and have earned a degree, you are finally all set to move ahead to join government or private companies.

Some of the prominent Canadian accounting schools that provide such courses are:

CDI College, Alberta
Reeves College, Alberta
triOS College, Ontario
Vancouver career College, British Columbia
Everest College, Ontario
MTI community College, BC
Algonquin Careers Academy, Mississauga, Ontario
Business Skills College, Hamiltom
Ashworth College

After completing your Accounting Degree in one of the Canadian Accounting Schools, you will be well on your way to charting a great career in the field of accounting.

School quality is one of the most important factors that parents consider when determining where to buy a home, condominium or townhouse. In the past, it was difficult to evaluate the quality of schools because no consistent evaluation standards existed between states, and sometimes between counties within a state. However, federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind (passed in 2002) sought to remedy this situation. But even before 2002, some states anticipated the need for greater consistency and accountability within their schools. For example, in 1999, legislators in California passed the California Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA). Among many other requirements, the PSAA established a school performance metric known as the Academic Performance Index (API).

The API was designed to measure the academic performance and growth of schools. The API is reported as a numerical score that ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. Schools in California are expected to achieve a score of 800 or higher. The API score is evaluated over a two-year cycle. This first year is considered the Base API Score, and the second year is considered the API Growth Score. To determine if a school has improved from the pervious year, simply compare the base score against the growth score.

In California, the API is calculated based on data from a variety of tests administered at different grade levels. These tests cover a broad range of academic topics such as: English, Writing, Math, History, Social Science, Language Arts, Science and General Knowledge. Results from each of the tests are consolidated and weighted to form the annual API score for a school, district, and county. These tests are administered annually and the API results are reported in late August or early September every year.

If you’re thinking of buying a home or any other type of real estate in San Diego County, you may be interested in knowing which are the best performing elementary, middle and high schools in the region.

Top 25 Public Elementary Schools in San Diego County (2006)

The list below ranks the top 25 elementary schools within the county based on their 2006 API Score. Also listed is the school’s district, their 2005 API score, and the number of students tested within the school. As mentioned above, scores range from 200 to 1000, with a minimum performance threshold of 800 or above.

1.Sage Canyon (Del Mar Union District). 2006 API = 966; 2005 API = 963; Students: 480
2.Creek Side (Poway Unified District). 2006 API = 961; 2005 API = 955, Students: 520
3.Ashley Falls (Del Mar Union Elementary). 2006 API = 958; 2005 API = 943, Students: 439
4.Carmel Creek (Solana Beach Elementary). 2006 API = 956; 2005 API = 946, Students: 288.
5.Solana Pacific (Solana Beach Elementary). 2006 API = 954; 2005 API = 945, Students: 452.
6.Torrey Hills (Del Mar Union Elementary). 2006 API = 952; 2005 API = 950, Students: 531.
7.Solana Highlands (Solana Beach Elementary). 2006 API = 949; 2005 API = 947, Students: 292.
8.Del Mar Heights (Del Mar Union Elementary). 2006 API = 947; 2005 API = 929, Students: 299
9.Deer Canyon (Poway Unified School District). 2006 API = 947; 2005 API = 924, Students: 403.
10.Bird Rock Elementary (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 943; 2005 API = 948, Students: 301.
11.El Camino Creek (Encinitas Union Elementary). 2006 API = 941; 2005 API = 928, Students: 653.
12.Park Village (Poway Unified District). 2006 API = 940; 2005 API = 917, Students: 560.
13.Flora Vista (Encinitas Union Elementary). 2006 API = 939; 2005 API = 912, Students: 346.
14.Olivenhain Pioneer (Encinitas Union Elementary). 2006 API = 939; 2005 API = 928, Students: 555.
15.Rancho Santa Fe (Rancho Santa Fe Elementary District). 2006 API = 939; 2005 API = 942, Students: 571.
16.Solana Santa Fe (Solana Beach Elementary). 2006 API = 938; 2005 API = 934, Students: 284.
17.Kelley Elementary (Carlsbad Unified). 2006 API = 934; 2005 API = 925, Students: 349.
18.Robert E. Dingeman (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 932; 2005 API = 930, Students: 554.
19.Mission Estancia (Encinitas Union Elementary). 2006 API = 925; 2005 API = 922 Students: 382.
20.Chaparral (Poway Unified District). 2006 API = 924; 2005 API = 894, Students: 529.
21.Jerabek (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 924; 2005 API = 928, Students: 545.
22.Scripps -Ellen Browning (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 924; 2005 API = 924, Students: 333.
23.Curie (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 923; 2005 API = 910, Students: 389
24.Painted Rock (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 922; 2005 API = 912, Students 450.
25.Hearst (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 922; 2005 API = 903, Students: 263

Top 25 Public Middle Schools in San Diego County (2006)

The list below ranks the top 25 middle schools within the county based on their 2006 API Score. Also listed is the school’s district, their 2005 API score, and the number of students tested within the school. As mentioned above, scores range from 200 to 1000, with a minimum performance threshold of 800 or above.

1.Carmel Valley (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 941; 2005 API = 931; Students: 1,252.
2.Rancho Santa Fe (Rancho Santa Fe Elementary). 2006 API = 938; 2005 API = 933. Students: 101.
3.Warren (Earl) Middle (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 908; 2005 API = 885. Students: 551.
4.Mesa Verde Middle (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 904; 2005 API = 895, Students: 1,355.
5.Diegueno (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 896; 2005 API = 873; Students: 931.
6.Oak Valley (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 892; 2005 API = Not Reported, Students: 599.
7.Thurgood Marshall (San Diego Unified) 2006 API = 891; 2005 API = 888, Students: 1,075.
8.Bernardo Heights (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 877; 2005 API = 878, Studnets: 1,331.
9.Muirlands Middle (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 877; 2005 API = 860, Students: 1,010.
10.High Tech Middle (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 876; 2005 API = 865, Students: 348.
11.Coronado Middle (Coronado Unified). 2006 API = 874; 2005 API = 872, Students: 671.
12.Twin Peaks Middle (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 873; 2005 API = 868, Students: 1,505.
13.Aviara Oaks Middle (Carlsbad Unified). 2006 API = 872; 2005 API = 864, Students:761.
14.KIPP Adelante Preparatory Academy (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 858; 2005 API = 754, Students: 234.
15.High Tech Middle International (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 856. 2005 API = Not Reported, Students: 302.
16.Hillsdale Middle (Cajon Valley Union Elementary). 2006 API = 852; 2005 API = 835, Students: 1,492.
17.Oak Crest Middle (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 852; 2005 API = 851, Students: 959.
18.Black Mountain Middle (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 844; 2005 API = 845, Students: 1,289.
19.Calavera Hills Middle (Carlsbad Unified). 2006 API = 840; 2005 API = 830. Students: 489.
20.Meadowbrook Middle (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 838; 2005 API = 845, Students: 1,370.
21.Mac Queen (Joan) (Alpine Union Elementary). 2006 API = 817; 2005 API = 803, Students: 781.
22.Valley Middle (Carlsbad Unified). 2006 API = 816; 2005 API = 800, Students: 1026.
23.Standley Middle (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 816; 2005 API = 838, Students: 1,297.
24.Wangenheim (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 816; 2005 API = 797, Students: 1,208.
25.Valley Center Middle (Valley Center-Pauma Unified). 2006 API = 815; 2005 API = 762, Students: 642.

Top 25 Public High Schools in San Diego County (2006)

The list below ranks the top 25 high schools within the county based on their 2006 API Score. Also listed is the school’s district, their 2005 API score, and the number of students tested within the school. As mentioned above, scores range from 200 to 1000, with a minimum performance threshold of 800 or above.

1.River Valley Charter (Lakeside Union Elementary). 2006 API = 888; 2005 API = 868, Students: 142.
2.Preuss Model School at UCSD (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 879; 2005 API = 861, Students: 681.
3.Canyon Crest Academy (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 868; 2005 API = 842, Students: 824.
4.Coronado High (Coronado Unified). 2006 API = 851; 2005 API = 838, Students: 745.
5.San Dieguito High Academy (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 836; 2005 API = 814, Students: 1,096.
6.Rancho Bernardo High (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 833; 2005 API = 832, Students: 2,059.
7.Torrey Pines High (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 832; 2005 API = 821, Students: 2,145.
8.High Tech High (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 829; 2005 API = 792, Students: 373.
9.La Jolla Senior High (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 822; 2005 API = 834, Students: 1,235.
10.Westview High (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 820; 2005 API =809, Students:1,594.
11.Poway High (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 815; 2005 API = 829, Students: 2,235.
12.Mt. Carmel High (Poway Unified). 2006 API = 806; 2005 API = 824, Students: 1,620.
13.La Costa Canyon High (San Dieguito Union High). 2006 API = 805; 2005 API = 782, Students: 1,880.
14.School of International Studies at S. D. (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 797; 2005 API = 795. Students:349.
15.Dehesa Charter School (Dehesa Elementary). 2006 API = 793; 2005 API = 785, Students: 376.
16.High Tech International (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 789; 2005 API = 764, Students: 269.
17.Scripps Ranch High (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 789; 2005 API = 799, Students: 1,677.
18.High Tech Media Arts (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 777; 2005 API = Not Reported, Students: 159.
19.Carlsbad High (Carlsbad Unified). 2006 API = 775; 2005 API = 768, Students: 2,145.
20.Escondido Charter (Escondido Union High). 2006 API = 775; 2005 API = 755, Students: 533.
21.Mira Mesa (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 775; 2005 API = 758, Students: 1,795.
22.Julian High (Julian Union High). 2006 API = 767; 2005 API =726, Students: 154.
23.University City High (San Diego Unified). 2006 API = 766; 2005 API = 766, Students: 1,350.
24.Valhalla High (Grossmont Union High). 2006 API = 763; 2005 API = 739, Students: 1,437.
25.Steele Canyon High (Grossmont Union High). 2006 API = 748; 2005 API = 735, Students: 1,501.

The rankings above include only schools that were classified by the California Department of Education as specifically an elementary, middle or high school. Schools classified in the “small” school category (which have less than 100 students) or “alternate” schools were not included in this ranking. Readers should verify the accuracy of the ratings above by visiting the California Department of Education’s Web site.

K-12 Independent Schools Automate Processes and Improve Communication with Parents Using Blackbaud for Small Schools
Web-based solution streamlines operations and eases IT burden so schools can focus on education

Read more on PRWeb via Yahoo! News