Natomas Charter

· Sacramento County · Natomas Unified
Public Sacramento County 🏛 Natomas Unified → ~139 seniors CDS 3475283…
📄 Shareable scorecard →

Compare with peers

Most similar nearby schools

Inderkum High School → Westlake Charter → Grant Union High → Rio Linda Senior High School → Rio Linda High → Compare all similar →

Enrollment trend & projection

Total enrollment (9–12)
1,822 (2018)1,899 (2026)
+4.2%
Grade 12 (graduating class)
114 (2018)133 (2026)
+16.7%

If this trend holds (+0.5%/yr, Total enrollment)

At per-pupil funding of $ / student:

Horizon Projected Total enrollment Change Funding impact / yr
1 yr (2027) ~1,909 +10 $0
3 yr (2029) ~1,929 +30 $0
5 yr (2031) ~1,949 +50 $0

Straight-line extrapolation of the recent annual rate — a what-if, not a forecast of intent. Default = California's LCFF base grant for grades 9–12 ($12,423/ADA). Edit the figure to match your school.

Enrollment stability & demand — 2024-25

Two complementary signals: retention (do students stay once enrolled?) and demand (are families choosing the school?). Read against the Sacramento County baseline — the demographic tide is moving every CA HS, so a school's gap vs. county is the actionable signal.

Healthy
Best in class — winning on demand and retention.

Natomas Charter outperformed Sacramento County on enrollment (school +16.7% vs. county +3.0%) AND maintains 92.8% stability. Replicable model — worth documenting what's working.

+16.7%  school enrollment (2018–2026)
+3.0%  Sacramento County baseline
+13.7pp  gap vs. county
92.8%  retention (county median 80.8%)
Enrollment — indexed to 100 at 2018
Stability rate by year (raw %)
Stability rate
92.8%
544 of 586 students

42 of 586 students who enrolled at Natomas Charter this year didn't maintain continuous enrollment (7.2% non-stability). Mid-year transfers, dropouts, and other exits are all counted.

Sacramento County median
80.8% · school is in the 92nd percentile of 77 HS
Statewide median
87.2% · in the 79th percentile of 1,688 HS

Stability by student group

Socio. disadvantaged (789) 91.8%
Hispanic / Latino (569) 91.9%
White (370) 94.3%
Asian (344) 96.5%
Two or more races (295) 94.6%
Students w/ disabilities (228) 92.1%

Nearest peer high schools

Inderkum High School 84.9% Westlake Charter 92.3% Grant Union High 78.5% Rio Linda High 80.7%

Source: California Department of Education, Stability Rate 2024-25. Benchmarks limited to non-virtual public & charter HS with ≥100 cumulative enrollees so by-design-high-churn continuation schools don't dominate the bottom of the distribution. Cumulative enrollment counts every student on the rolls during the year, so it can exceed peak-day enrollment.

Chronic absenteeism — 2024-25

Share of students missing 10% or more of expected attendance — the leading indicator that often precedes the demand decline shown above. Families disengaging tend to raise absenteeism first, then formally leave. Basis: grades 9–12.

Chronic absent
4.4%
25 of 573 students

Low and stable absenteeism — students are engaged and showing up. The leading indicator is healthy.

Sacramento County median
25.8% · school is better than 96% of 75 HS
Statewide median
22.9%
Chronic absenteeism by year (raw %)

Source: California Department of Education, Chronic Absenteeism 2024-25. Benchmarks limited to non-virtual public & charter HS with ≥100 eligible students. CDE didn't publish a usable 2019-20 file (COVID).

SBAC academic outcomes — grade 11, 2025

Share of grade-11 students meeting or exceeding the California standard on Smarter Balanced ELA and Math. This is the academic-readiness signal that pairs with UC Reach (post-grad outcomes), stability (retention), and absenteeism (engagement). Note: statewide median Math is only ~20% — a school at 20% isn't an outlier; one at 45%+ genuinely is.

ELA — met or exceeded
n = 131
78.6%
incl. 41.2% exceeded
+32.5 pts above Sacramento County median (46.1%) · CA median 54.3% · Top 10% statewide ≥ 79.3%
Math — met or exceeded
n = 131
35.1%
incl. 10.7% exceeded
+17.4 pts above Sacramento County median (17.7%) · CA median 21.1% · Top 10% statewide ≥ 53.6%

Source: California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) Smarter Balanced research files. Benchmarks limited to non-virtual public & charter HS with ≥30 tested students.

Student composition — 2025-26

HS grades 9–12 racial/ethnic composition and program subgroups, from CDE Census Day Enrollment. Two-year shift shown when ≥1 pt — surfaces how the community served has changed since 2023-24.

Race / ethnicity

Hispanic / Latino 32% +1.3
White 26% +3.5
Two or more 15%
Asian 11%
Black / African Am. 9%
Filipino 6% -1.7
Pacific Islander 0%
Not reported 0% -1.5

Program subgroups

Students w/ disabilities 36% -1.1
Socioeconomically disadv. 11%

Source: California Department of Education, Census Day Enrollment 2025-26 (HS grades 9–12). Δ shown when shift is ≥1 pt since 2023-24. Categories below 0.5% omitted.

District financial profile — Natomas Unified (FY2020)

From 4 years of NCES F-33 filings (the federally-mandated district finance survey). Public schools don't have their own books — the district does. These figures show the financial scale, revenue dependence, instruction-vs-overhead mix, and long-term debt that shape what a school can sustain.

Total revenue
$235.6M
+30.4% since FY2017
Per-pupil revenue
$17,133
13,748 students enrolled
Revenue mix
State: 58.1%
Local: 29.9%
Federal: 12.0%
Instruction share
60.4%
of current spending · $8,265/pupil
Long-term debt
$419.3M
+66.4% since FY2017
Total revenue by year ($M)
Total expenditure by year ($M)

Source: NCES F-33 Annual Survey of School System Finances (Urban Institute Education Data API). Latest year currently published: FY2020. F-33 is a district-level federal filing — it reflects the Natomas Unified as a whole, not this individual school's books. Revenue mix shows where the district's dollars come from (state aid dominates in CA via LCFF). Instruction share is current expenditure on instruction ÷ total current expenditure (national benchmark ~60%). Long-term debt is end-of-year outstanding (mostly facilities bonds).

University of California outcomes · Class of 2024
UC Reach
40%
55 admits / 139 seniors
+20.0 pp above peer median (19.6%) · Ranked #2 of 10 similar schools
Where this sits on the California curve
CA median
18.6%
Top 10%
53.4%
This school
39.6%
0%50%100%
CA median 18.6% Top 10% ≥ 53.4% This school 39.6%

Higher than 79% of California high schools (1142 ranked, ≥50 seniors)

📊 What this number means

Natomas Charter's UC Reach of 39.6% is in the top quartile statewide (median 18.6%; top 25% bar 34.2%) — but it's still below the top-10% bar of 53.4%.

For context, the elite tier (top 1%) clears 95.1% — a gap of 55 pp from where this school sits.

Overall, Natomas Charter's UC Reach is higher than 79% of California high schools (1142 ranked).

UC Application Reach
138.8%
193 applications
Most seniors are applying to at least one of the six most selective UCs (applications counted at each campus).
In context: CA median 79.7% · Top 10% statewide ≥ 243.8% · Sacramento Co. Top 10% ≥ 171.1% · higher than 73% of CA HS.
UC Admit Rate
28.5%
55 / 193 applications
In context: CA median 26.6% · Top 10% statewide ≥ 39.9% · higher than 58% of CA HS.
UC Yield Rate
30.9%
17 enrolled of 55 admitted
Yield vs. Enrollment Reach: Yield answers "of UC admits, what % chose UC?" — denominator is just the admits. A small admitted cohort can post a low yield even when the school sends a healthy share of its class to UC.
UC Enrollment Reach
12.2%
17 enrollees / 139 seniors
Enrollment Reach vs. Yield: Reach answers "of the whole senior class, what % ended up at UC?" — denominator is everyone. High Yield with low Enrollment Reach is common at elite privates: most admits matriculate, but the school sends most of its class to non-UC selective colleges.
A-G Completion
83%
100 of 120 graduates · 2024-25 cohort
In context: CA median 55.9% · +27.4 pp above · Sacramento Co. 50.9%.
Selective UC Reach (UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UCD)
20.9
per 100 seniors · campus-level total
In context: CA median 15.8 · Top 10% statewide ≥ 42.3 · higher than 64% of CA HS.
Elite UC Reach (UCB + UCLA)
5.0
per 100 seniors · campus-level total
In context: CA median 3.6 · Top 10% statewide ≥ 12.1 · higher than 63% of CA HS.
Senior Class Size
139
CDE grade 12 (exact)
Total School Enrollment
1,863
All grades · CDE Census Day
Economic Connectedness
1.52
84th percentile in CA · cross‑class friendships

Natomas Charter — Enrollment & Outcomes Snapshot

Public · vs. 10 most similar nearby schools

  • On UC Reach, Natomas Charter sits near the top of its similar-school group (ranked #2 of 10): 40% vs. a peer median of 20%.
  • Senior-class enrollment is up 17% (114→133 from 2018 to 2026), outpacing the peer-group median of +1%.
  • Enrollment has been growing (+0.5%/yr); projects to ~1929 by 2029.

Enrollment projection

1899 students (2026)
~1929 projected (2029)
at +0.5%/yr

Your school vs. its 10 most similar nearby schools

School Type Size UC Reach Enroll. trend
Natomas Charter Public 1899 39.6% +17%
Peer-group median 19.6% +1%
Inderkum High School Public 2169 28.5% -1%
Westlake Charter Public 1492 38.1% -17%
Grant Union High Public 2124 15.7% +20%
Rio Linda Senior High School Public 1641 9.4% +1%
Rio Linda High Public 1641 -1%
River City High School Public 2099 19.6% +7%
Rio Americano High School Public 1930 22.8% +25%
Mira Loma High School Public 1679 45.4% -5%
Antelope High School Public 1781 14.3% +1%
Hiram W Johnson High School Public 1637 8.3% +18%

UC Reach = top-6 UC admits ÷ senior class (can exceed 100% when students are admitted to multiple campuses). Enrollment trend = first-to-latest grade-12 change on file. Similar schools matched on proximity, size, type. Methodology →

Campus Breakdown — 2024

Campus Applicants Admits Enrollees Admit Rate UC Reach Yield Avg GPA (App) Avg GPA (Adm)
UC Berkeley → Elite 33 4 3 12.1% 2.9% 75.0%
UCLA → Elite 33 3 9.1% 2.2%
UC San Diego → Selective 28 8 3 28.6% 5.8% 37.5%
UC Santa Barbara → Selective 27 10 37.0% 7.2%
UC Irvine → Selective 25 4 16.0% 2.9%
UC Davis → 47 26 11 55.3% 18.7% 42.3%
⚠ Campus-level totals may count one student admitted to multiple UC campuses more than once. Admit Volume metrics are not the same as UC Reach, which requires unique-student counts. See methodology →

What This Means

A large share of the senior class applies to UC, indicating strong college-going culture and UC pipeline development.
A large share of the class applies to UC, so the admit rate runs lower than the application volume alone might suggest — expected when many students apply broadly, including to reach campuses. UC Reach (which credits every admit relative to the class) is the truer read of how the class fares: a strong Reach alongside a moderate admit rate is healthy, not a contradiction.
UC Reach is solid. A meaningful share of the senior class is achieving UC admission, and there is likely room to grow both application volume and admission outcomes.
Students are earning UC admission but enrolling elsewhere at a notable rate. This may reflect competition from private colleges, out-of-state flagships, cost considerations, or UC campus fit. Student outcome surveys can clarify.
The school generates broad UC access, but fewer students are reaching the most selective UC campuses (UCLA, Berkeley, UCSD, UCSB, UCI). Targeted academic enrichment and campus-fit advising may help.
Berkeley/UCLA admit volume is modest relative to overall UC reach. This is common and reflects the highly selective nature of those campuses, but may be a target area for the school's highest-performing students.
Note: admit counts used here are campus-level totals. A student admitted to both UCLA and UCSD is counted twice. When UCOP unique-student data becomes available it will be loaded automatically and the labels will update.
Compare with other schools → See Sacramento County rankings →

Is your school winning the families it should?

An Enrollment Trend Audit benchmarks your enrollment against nearby schools, shows who's gaining and losing families, and lays out a plan to make families choose you — built around the outcomes your families value. Built for principals, heads of school, and district leaders.

Request an Enrollment Trend Audit →