Sunridge Charter

· Sonoma County · Twin Hills Union Elementary
Public Sonoma County 🏛 Twin Hills Union Elementary → CDS 4970961…
📄 Shareable scorecard →

Compare with peers

Most similar nearby schools

Twin Hills Charter Middle → Sebastopol Independent Charter → Ridgway High (continuation) → Wright Charter → Olivet Elementary Charter → Compare all similar →

No UC admissions data on file for Sunridge Charter.

This school doesn't appear in UCOP's source-school records (it may send few or no applicants to UC). Its enrollment trend and similar-school comparison are still below.

Enrollment trend & projection

Total enrollment
284 (2018)263 (2026)
-7.4%

If this trend holds (-1.0%/yr, Total enrollment)

At per-pupil funding of $ / student:

Horizon Projected Total enrollment Change Funding impact / yr
1 yr (2027) ~260 -3 $0
3 yr (2029) ~256 -7 $0
5 yr (2031) ~251 -12 $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 Sonoma County baseline — the demographic tide is moving every CA HS, so a school's gap vs. county is the actionable signal.

Stability rate
96.2%
250 of 260 students

10 of 260 students who enrolled at Sunridge Charter this year didn't maintain continuous enrollment (3.8% non-stability). Mid-year transfers, dropouts, and other exits are all counted.

Sonoma County median
92.0% · school is in the 86th percentile of 59 HS
Statewide median
88.7% · in the 92nd percentile of 2,648 HS

Stability by student group

White (200) 95.5%
Socio. disadvantaged (93) 95.7%
Hispanic / Latino (36) 100.0%
Two or more races (22) 95.5%

Nearest peer high schools

Twin Hills Charter Middle 96.2% Sebastopol Independent Charter 95.6% Ridgway High (continuation) 44.1% Wright Charter 89.2% Olivet Elementary Charter 90.4%

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: total enrollment.

Chronic absent
25.9%
67 of 259 students

Absenteeism is up 11.9 pp since 2016-17. A rising absenteeism trend often precedes formal departure — worth investigating which subgroups are driving it.

Sonoma County median
17.5% · school is worse than 84% of 58 HS
Statewide median
20.9%
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).

District financial profile — Twin Hills Union Elementary (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
$14.6M
+4.6% since FY2017
Per-pupil revenue
$13,227
1,101 students enrolled
Revenue mix
State: 56.5%
Local: 38.9%
Federal: 4.6%
Instruction share
58.4%
of current spending · $8,248/pupil
Long-term debt
$5.3M
-6.5% since FY2017
Total revenue by year ($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 Twin Hills Union Elementary 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).

Sunridge Charter — Enrollment & Outcomes Snapshot

Public · vs. 10 most similar nearby schools

  • At its recent rate (-1.0%/yr), enrollment projects to ~256 by 2029 — about 7 fewer students than today.

Enrollment projection

263 students (2026)
~256 projected (2029)
at -1.0%/yr

That's about 7 fewer students. At per-student funding of $ per student, that's roughly $0 in annual state funding at risk.

Default = California's LCFF base grant for grades 9–12 ($12,423 per ADA) — adjust to your district's actual per-pupil figure. Projection extrapolates the recent annual rate — not a forecast of intent.

Your school vs. its 10 most similar nearby schools

School Type Size UC Reach Enroll. trend
Sunridge Charter Public 263
Peer-group median 31.6% -4%
Twin Hills Charter Middle Public 252
Sebastopol Independent Charter Public 282
Ridgway High (continuation) Public 252 -4%
Wright Charter Public 342
Olivet Elementary Charter Public 328
Morrice Schaefer Charter Public 318
Piner-Olivet Charter Public 204
Technology High School Public 344 31.6% +10%
Santa Rosa Charter School For The Arts Public 375
Pathways Charter Public 379 -32%

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 →

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 →