Robertson Continuation High School

  1. PLC Story
  2. PLC Practices
  3. Achievement Data
  4. Awards
  5. Resources

School Profile:

Robertson High School is a Title I alternative program for students who have encountered difficulties within the traditional high school setting.  Robertson is the only continuation high school serving the five comprehensive high schools in the Fremont Unified School District in Fremont, California.  Students may transfer to Robertson every nine weeks, and must be at least 15 ½ years of age to attend. Most students attend Robertson voluntarily because they are deficient in credits; however, some students are involuntarily placed. The Robertson program provides two opportunities for students:  they may complete the necessary classes and graduate from Robertson or they may return to a comprehensive high school after at least one successful semester.


Notable Demographics*









Socio-economically Disadvantaged


English Learner **




*data shifts every 9 weeks due to changes in enrollment

** An unusual, historic low


What we were:

Before 2008, Robertson, like so many other continuation high schools, was simply put, a dumping ground for students who were not making it at a comprehensive site. There was a loose structure, no definitive guidelines for course completion, packet-based instruction, no collaboration, no meaningful planning or feedback to students, and an adult-focused culture. There was a need to transform the school’s culture, systems, processes, philosophy, and structure. Thus began our ten-year journey.


Change process:

Changes began with a shift in philosophy.  Staff created a clear vision and goals that included high expectations of both students and staff, built on the belief that all students can learn at high levels. Strategically, instruction was moved from packets to researched-based direct interactive instruction. At first, not all staff embraced the changes; however, through courageous conversations and a high level of staff turnover, the administration was able to transform the school culture. Student-learning became the center of decision-making.

To facilitate this transition, teachers were provided with research-based professional development, such as Action Learning Systems’ Direct Interactive Instruction training. Changes were also made to the master schedule. For example,  the length of the school day was increased to provide for additional instructional minutes, classes were purified by grade level and subject, and time was allocated for school wide collaboration and ongoing professional development. Modifications have continued over the years to include more rigorous course offerings and to provide time during the school day for “will” and “skill” intervention. Our staff led research-based professional development from authors such as: Robert Marzano, Richard Dufour, John Hattie, Grant Wiggins, and Jay McTighe. The PD began by building a collaborative culture around learning, and then moved on to strategic curricular planning and data analysis.

The cornerstone of change has been the continuous improvement of instructional practices. To begin, teachers collaboratively identified priority standards and created a viable curriculum.  Collective instructional practices include: a daily “What, Why, and How” lesson objective; a lesson structure and sequence that provides modeling, guided practice, and independent practice; and frequent checks for understanding. To support this work, teachers conduct quick visits to provide feedback. In this way, staff hold each other accountable for increased student learning and commitment to instructional practices.


Where we are now:

Moving into a highly collaborative culture has allowed our staff to assess the current practices and procedures, see their impact on student learning, and identify areas of growth to ensure continual improvement.  High levels of support for teachers, including co-planning/co-teaching and instructional coaching, drive collaboration and create accountability amongst staff. Staff communicate honestly and consistently around student progress and teacher learning. Collaboration time is utilized for teachers to examine their data sheets and discuss and plan intervention and enrichment groups and lessons. It is our core belief that ongoing reflection is paramount for growth. Robertson is proud to be a student centered community with student learning as the focus.  


1. Monitoring student learning on a timely basis.

Robertson is a singleton program, where each course is taught by one teacher.  For this reason, entire department teams collaboratively created the backwards-design unit plans for all courses offered at Robertson.  They started by identifying essential standards for each course. From there, they began developing backwards-design unit plans: standards-based unit goal, essential questions, summative assessment, learning targets, and finally multiple formative assessments (exit tickets). For example, in Math, the department looked at the standards for every single course offered and decided as a team, which ones were priority.  Next, they developed backwards-design units for every single course. This was a strategic approach to ensuring that courses were set up to create continuity between math courses and also bridge the gap as the students moved to more rigorous classes. Every department has gone through this process of creating a viable curriculum to address PLC question one: What do we want all students to know and be able to do? Having these learning targets and formative assessments built into the backwards-designs, enables teachers to strategically intervene or enrich during Flex time.

In addition, as a best practice, all teachers use the “What, Why, How?” format, which includes posting and referencing the learning target (what), relevance (why), and agenda (how) during the lesson. Due to the explicit nature of this practice, students immediately know what the learning outcome is for the day. This also provides students the awareness to self-assess their progress on meeting the learning target.

Teachers conduct regular checks for understanding throughout instruction. Checking for understanding extends beyond asking the whole class questions. It occurs frequently, strategically, and informs instruction.  Teachers halt instruction, reteach, intervene, or work with students individually based on this feedback.

For every learning target, teachers develop at least one formative assessment (FA). These formative assessments are utilized daily in the form of exit tickets or independent practice, as evidence of student learning. Students receive feedback immediately or no later than the next day. In some departments, Common Formative Assessments (CFAs) have been developed, despite each teacher in the department being the sole teacher of his/her subject matter. As a solution, CFAs are designed through assessing priority literacy standards that are essential across all subject areas as opposed to specific content standards. Teachers use the data gathered from both FAs and CFAs to determine if there needs to be reteaching, intervention or enrichment. Many times, a combination of all three are necessary to address the needs of a whole class. Since Robertson’s Flex time intervention period occurs on a daily basis, the data and feedback is provided to students in a timely manner.  Monitoring student learning happens daily and strategically.

Teachers also utilize data sheets, which track formative and summative assessment data by each student and each learning target. Data sheets have been especially helpful for departments that conduct CFAs. In fact, in analyzing the data from CFAs, those departments reflect and collaborate on best practices or trends in learning, then decide how to  coordinate department-wide intervention or enrichment. In many courses, students utilize their own personal data sheets to self-assess and reflect on their individual learning. These sheets promote a sense of responsibility and ownership of their own learning progress.

School Loop is an Internet-based tool that all stakeholders use to monitor student learning. The school-wide expectation is that teachers update their students’ scores at least once per week to provide students with timely feedback on their current level of mastery. Staff work to ensure that every student is registered on School Loop. During Back to School Night and Parent-Teacher Conferences, staff show  parents how to use School Loop to monitor their child’s progress. Teachers also regularly provide students with copies of their progress reports to help students monitor their learning.


2. Creating systems of intervention to provide students with additional time and support for learning.

Robertson staff used to  offer extra support for students at lunch and after school.  However, this practice was not sustainable for students and teachers. The time was unstructured, not-strategic, and intervention on specific learning targets was not occurring. Also, push-in intervention teachers in core classes offered targeted student support. Despite their successes, the support was occurring in only a handful of classes each quarter and the need was greater than what the system could offer.

After implementing RTI and creating a strong Tier I academic program, staff realized the need to establish a structure to support the skill and will intervention students needed during the school day. In order to build in that intervention time, staff spent many hours discussing Flex time: thirty minutes of intense intervention or enrichment, five days a week. Staff established norms for how that time would be utilized. For skill, teachers agreed to use Flex time for targeted intervention or enrichment based on data collected from FAs or CFAs. It was also agreed that the intent of Flex was to re-teach, practice towards mastery, or delve into the “nice to know” learning targets as enrichment. However, we also have offer Study Hall as an option for students who need to make up missing assignements or tests. Some departments also committed to conducting department-wide intervention by grouping students using data sheets and providing the intervention they need. The staff decided that Flex would be sacred time in which an “all hands on deck” approach would be implemented. Counselors, classified staff, and teachers would either be in classrooms or conduct Will intervention. In this way, students and staff know the importance of Flex time.  Additionally, we agreed to using Flex time on Wednesdays for exploration. For example, teachers and classified staff have put together lessons for Mindfulness, yoga, expressive dance, kaleidescope coloring, and healthy eating.  

Staff realized that teachers cannot address students’ skill deficiencies until will issues are addressed. To address will issues, staff created a program called “Fight Club.” Staff invited students by screening for 70% attendance and one or more Fs in their previous grading period. Nine coaches (mentors) meet with three students on a weekly basis. We use a curriculum centered around socio-emotional learning that covers content such as compassion, patience, oppression, social justice, gratitude, and perseverance. This opens up opportunities for rich, meaningful discussions with students who never get the chance to explore these topics in a structured, safe manner. During this time, coaches also review each student’s weekly progress and create plans to improve, if needed. Fight Club uses a points system in which students receive points for their grades, attendance, attending Homework  Club after school, and attending Mindfulness sessions. Each student had a baseline score from the previous quarter. At the end of the nine weeks together, points are totalled up and if the student showed even one point growth, they are awarded the opportunity to attend a field trip such as going to a Ropes Course in Mt. Herman.


3. Building teacher capacity to work as members of high performing collaborative teams that focus efforts on improved learning for all students.

Robertson has created a culture that is committed to student learning. Staff members find PLC work meaningful and are determined to provide  every student with high quality educational opportunities. The foundation of the work lies in holding each other accountable to student learning and success.

There are structures and systems in place that have created this high-performing, collaborative team culture, but in the beginning, much work went into developing a common philosophy around what makes at-risk students successful.  Much energy and investment was spent to create a culture centered around student learning,. Shared research, professional development, staff and department meeting agendas, Restorative Practices, and all other efforts were strategically designed to develop a common staff philosophy with the focus on students’ academic and social emotional needs.  Through these efforts,developed strong relationships among the staff which continue to flourish today. Staff became united in their efforts to help all students on campus.

There are a number of teams that are committed to ensuring that all students experience academic success.  The Leadership Team (department chairs), Counseling Team, Departmental Teams, and the Coordination of Service Team (COST) meet regularly with the emphasis on student achievement and support.  The Leadership Team ensures that a focus on student achievement is on the agenda for all other meetings on campus. The members of the Leadership Team then disperse to their own Department Team meetings to share the focus with the department.  Department Teams have created SMART goals, identified priority standards, developed learning targets and CFAs, and analyzed student work. Department Teams determine how to best utilize Flex time across their departments to ensure that PLC questions 3 and 4 (intervention and enrichment) are being answered.

The ILT provides feedback to teachers on backwards-design unit plans, as well as via periodic instructional rounds.  Observation tools are shared with teachers and individual feedback is offered to those who want specific notes.  The Counseling and COST Teams work to provide social-emotional support, and to intervene when “will” issues arise.  The COST Team conducts meetings to address specific, individual student needs and develops action plans to help resolve issues that may impede student learning.  All teams have created norms and have agendas that focus on clear outcomes. To collaborate in this manner, administration has set aside time every morning and every Wednesday afternoon, as well as release days and additional time, to accomplish PLC goals.

Finally, a key element to the success of all of these teams is the involvement of support staff, such as the attendance clerk and office assistants.  Each support staff member plays a role during Flex time, ensuring that all students are held accountable and provided support for intervention and enrichment.  These staff members are vitally important to the success of each RHS student, as they go above and beyond their job descriptions, developing positive, role model relationships with students that continue well after they leave the campus.  Without their involvement, the work of the high-performing, collaborative teacher teams on campus would not be as successful as they are in ensuring that each student achieves at high levels.

Achievement Data Files

Additional Achievement Data

Robertson is an alternative program for students who have encountered difficulties within the traditional high school setting. 






African American



American Indian or Alaska Native









Hispanic or Latino



Pacific Islander






Two or More Races




The district data is very different than the RHS data.  Students who are referred to RHS have very different demographics than those of the district as a whole. 


Student Subgroups














Many of Robertson's subgroups differ largely than those of the district as a whole.  RHS has a much higher percentage of students that fall into categories such as socioeconomically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and homeless youth.



School Student Achievement Data

State Accountability: CAASPP

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Proficiency







Fremont USD



Fremont USD



Fremont USD





Not Available










Not Available







 *The 2019-2020 CAASPP test was not administered, therefore, the 2018-2019 data is posted.

Students enter RHS every 9 weeks and can exit every 18 weeks upon successful completion of courses.  This movement makes comparison data from year to year very difficult and sometimes inaccurate.  For instance, a student may arrive a few days or weeks before taking the CAASPP.  Due to our continually changing student population, state accountability measures such as CAASPP data does not truly reflect student achievement at Robertson High School.


Robertson students do not take the ACT, SAT, or AP tests.

 Schoolwide Course Completion Rates

2021-2022 Total # of student Failed at least one class Pass all classes Pass ratio
Q1 157 30 127 81%
Q2 157 61 96 61%
Q3 155 51 104 67%
Q4 153 54 99 65%
2020-2021 Total # of student Failed at least one class Pass all classes Pass ratio
Q1 144 74 70 49%
Q2 155 95 60 39%
Q3 190 103 87 46%
Q4 204 115 89 44%
2019-2020 Total # of student Failed at least one class Pass all classes Pass ratio
Q1 180 100 80 44%
Q2 178 89 89 50%
Q3 173 98 75 43%
Q4 159 109 50 31%

The above data shows the course completion rates of the RHS students from the previous three years. The data was calculated by dividing the number of courses completed by the number of courses attempted.  The data shows that post pandemic and in person learning led to higher course completion rates.

Course Completion for Math Courses

2021-2022 Overall Course Completion Course Completion (ELs) Course Completion (SPED) Course Completion for students who regularly attend school
Q1 89% 100% 88% 88%
Q2 50% 79% 65% 65%
Q3 63% 79% 62% 62%
Q4 64% 82% 79%  
2020-2021 Overall Course Completion Course Completion (ELs) Course Completion (SPED)  
Q1 50% 52% 53%  
Q2 17% 50% 42%  
Q3 58% 47% 42%  
Q4 75% 50% 46%  
2019-2020 Overall Course Completion Course Completion (ELs) Course Completion (SPED)  
Q1 33% 33% 53%  
Q2 33% 44% 58%  
Q3 * * *  
Q4 * * *


*Data for Quarters 3 and 4 are missing due to the COVID shutdown. Alternative teaching and assessment methods were used.

Course Completion for English Courses

2021-2022 Overall Course Completion Course Completion (ELs) Course Completion (SPED) Course Completion for students who regularly attend school
Q1 91% 94% 93% 90%
Q2 80% 89% 90% 80%
Q3 84% 80% 75% 84%
Q4 80% 73% 71%  
2020-2021 Overall Course Completion Course Completion (ELs) Course Completion (SPED)  
Q1 70% 62% 47%  
Q2 67% 67% 53%  
Q3 65% 72% 60%  
Q4 61% 68% 54%  
2019-2020 Overall Course Completion Course Completion (ELs) Course Completion (SPED)  
Q1 77% 69% 75%  
Q2 69% 65% 53%  
Q3 * * *  
Q4 * * *

 *Data for Quarters 3 and 4 are missing due to the COVID shutdown. Alternative teaching and assessment methods were used.

The above data shows the course completion rates of the RHS students from the previous three years in their Math and English courses.  Course completion is tracked to look at all of our students, but also our students that are designated as EL and SPED.   Pushin support is allocated based on this information.  We found that EL students often matched (within 1%) or outperformed their English only counterparts in course completion.








Model Continuation School, 2013, 2017, and 2020 (Up for Reveiw in 2023)

PLC Model Continuation School 2018 

Alameda County Teacher of the Year, 2015

FUSD Teacher of the Year, 2015

Fremont Education Foundation, Educator of the Year, 2016

CCEA Region 4 Teacher of the Year, 2014

CCEA Region 4 Administrator of the Year, 2014

ACSA Region 6 Co-Administrator of the Year, 2016

South Bay Athletic League Basketball Champs, 2015, 2018

South Bay Athletic League Softball Champs, 2016, 2018

South Bay Athletic League Volleyball Champs, 2017