Thomas Jefferson High School
📄 Shareable scorecard →Enrollment trend & projection
If this trend holds (-3.8%/yr, Total enrollment)
At per-pupil funding of $ / student:
| Horizon | Projected Total enrollment | Change | Funding impact / yr |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 yr (2027) | ~471 | -19 | $0 |
| 3 yr (2029) | ~436 | -54 | $0 |
| 5 yr (2031) | ~404 | -86 | $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 Los Angeles County baseline — the demographic tide is moving every CA HS, so a school's gap vs. county is the actionable signal.
Enrollment growth is beating Los Angeles County (-2.4% vs. -8.2%), but 119 of 626 students didn't maintain continuous enrollment. Why are families leaving once enrolled? Chronic absenteeism is also at 30.7% (up +6.3 pts from 2016-17) — engagement and demand are both signaling decline.
119 of 626 students who enrolled at Thomas Jefferson High School this year didn't maintain continuous enrollment (19.0% non-stability). Mid-year transfers, dropouts, and other exits are all counted.
Stability by student group
Nearest peer high schools
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.
Absenteeism is up 6.3 pp since 2016-17. A rising absenteeism trend often precedes formal departure — worth investigating which subgroups are driving it.
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.
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
Program subgroups
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 — Los Angeles 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.
Local: 29.8%
Federal: 18.5%
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 Los Angeles 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).
-6.5 pp vs. peer median (22.4%) · Ranked #5 of 6 similar schools
18.5%
53.3%
15.9%
Higher than 44% of California high schools (1105 ranked, ≥50 seniors)
Thomas Jefferson High School's UC Reach of 15.9% is below the California median (18.5%). The top 10% of CA schools achieve 53.3% or higher.
Overall, Thomas Jefferson High School's UC Reach is higher than 44% of California high schools (1105 ranked).
Thomas Jefferson High School — Enrollment & Outcomes Snapshot
Public · Los Angeles · vs. 10 most similar nearby schools
- ▸On UC Reach, Thomas Jefferson High School sits near the bottom of its similar-school group (ranked #5 of 6): 16% vs. a peer median of 22%.
- ▸Its UC Reach has held roughly steady since 2018.
- ▸Senior-class enrollment is down 2% (124→121 from 2018 to 2026), tracking the peer-group median of -2%.
- ▸In business terms, this is market-share growth during a market contraction. Los Angeles County's senior population shrank 8% over the same window — Thomas Jefferson High School only shrank 2%. So Thomas Jefferson High School picked up about 6 percentage points of relative share — families chose it over the alternatives even as the overall pool got smaller. That's overperforming the market in a shrinking market.
- ▸At its recent rate (-3.8%/yr), enrollment projects to ~436 by 2029 — about 54 fewer students than today.
Enrollment projection
That's about 54 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Jefferson High School | Public | 490 | 15.9% | -2% |
| Peer-group median | 22.4% | -2% | ||
| Wallis Annenberg High School | Public | 487 | 45.7% | +13% |
| Animo Ralph Bunche Charter Hs | Public | 517 | 20.7% | -3% |
| Diego Rivera Learning Complex Green Design Steam Academy | Public | 494 | — | +9% |
| Linda Esperanza Marquez High C School Of Social Justice | Public | 489 | — | -6% |
| New Designs Charter School | Public | 467 | 8.4% | +44% |
| University Preparatory Value High | Public | 496 | — | -5% |
| Ednovate - Usc Hybrid High College Prep | Public | 519 | — | +4% |
| Nava College Prep Academy | Public | 585 | 28.2% | -26% |
| Performing Arts Community At Diego Rivera Learning Complex | Public | 444 | — | -2% |
| Aspire Pacific Academy | Public | 539 | 22.4% | -22% |
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 →
Admit rate vs. CA peer average, by campus ⓘ
How does this school's admit rate at each UC compare to other CA schools whose applicant pool averages the same GPA?
| Campus | Applicant GPA (avg) | Actual admit rate | CA peer avg | Δ | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UC San Diego | 3.55 | 35.7% | 33.6% | +2.1pp | On target |
| UC Santa Barbara | 3.53 | 25.0% | 32.7% | -7.7pp | Under |
| UC Irvine | 3.56 | 12.2% | 16.0% | -3.8pp | On target |
| UC Davis | 3.66 | 46.2% | 32.3% | +13.9pp | Over |
Where Thomas Jefferson High School sits vs. all California schools ⓘ
Overall, this school admits its UC applicants in line with what their GPAs predict (23.9% actual vs. 25.3% expected).
UC Outcomes Trend — 2018–2025
Class size from CDE grade 12 enrollment. Campus-level data — applicant/admit totals may count a student at multiple campuses more than once.
Campus Breakdown — 2025
| Campus | Applicants | Admits | Enrollees | Admit Rate | UC Reach | Yield | Avg GPA (App) | Avg GPA (Adm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UC Berkeley → Elite | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | 3.91 | — |
| UCLA → Elite | 22 | — | — | — | — | — | 3.68 | — |
| UC San Diego → Selective | 14 | 5 | — | 35.7% | 3.6% | — | 3.55 | 3.94 |
| UC Santa Barbara → Selective | 24 | 6 | — | 25.0% | 4.3% | — | 3.53 | 4.08 |
| UC Irvine → Selective | 41 | 5 | — | 12.2% | 3.6% | — | 3.56 | 3.94 |
| UC Davis → | 13 | 6 | — | 46.2% | 4.3% | — | 3.66 | 3.85 |