Is this your district? Email the board to prioritize reading!
Email BoardCastro Valley Unified
Alameda County school performance
Reading and math results average to the 87th percentile among California school districts.
66.8% of students met California's reading standard, and it is trending up slightly.
58.7% of students met California's math standard, but it is trending up slightly.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 66.8% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 58.7% |
| District Reading Rank | 132 / 977 (87th percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 127 / 977 (87th percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 21:1 |
| Spend per Student | $15,847 |
| Schools in District | 13 |
| Student Enrollment | 9,548 |
| Low-Income Students | 3,705 (38.7%) |
| English Learners | 1,152 (12.0%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading fell 0.2 points from last year and rose 0.7 points over the full period. Math fell 0.3 points from last year and rose 0.5 points over the full period.
•Math +0.5 percentage pointsBoard Members
| name | elected | up for re-election |
|---|---|---|
Sara E. Raymond Trustee Area 4, President [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Gary C. Howard Trustee Area 4, Vice President / Clerk [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Dolly Adams Trustee Area 1 [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Lavender Lee Whitaker Trustee Area 2 [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Mike Kusiak Trustee Area 5 [email protected] | 2020 | 2028 |
Expand for details on low-income and english learner performance
Reading Proficiency Scores
Comparison of low-income and English learner groups using district-level CAASPP proficiency data.
Low-Income vs Non-Low-Income
Low-income students trail other students by 24.8 points in reading. It widened slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
19.3% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 68.5% of English-only students. The gap widened as English-learner results fell and English-only results rose.
•Math Proficiency Scores
Comparison of low-income and English learner groups using district-level CAASPP proficiency data.
Low-Income vs Non-Low-Income
Low-income students trail other students by 24.6 points in math. It narrowed over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
27.2% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 57.6% of English-only students. The gap narrowed as English-learner results rose and English-only results rose.
•District School Map
Schools in this district, color-coded by reading proficiency.
Loading district map...
Hover over a school marker to see details
Schools
Understanding this district
How does Castro Valley Unified rank in California?
Castro Valley Unified ranks No. 132 of 977 in reading and No. 127 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between Castro Valley Unified’s schools?
Among the 9 schools serving K–5, proficiency ranges from 48.3% to 89.0% in reading and 50.7% to 84.2% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across Castro Valley Unified’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 6 of 13 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 5 of 13.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in Castro Valley Unified compare with other districts?
Low-income reading proficiency is 51.8%, compared with 35.1% at a typical California unified district. In math, it is 43.9%, compared with 23.6%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with Castro Valley Unified?
Unified districts in Alameda County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Castro Valley UnifiedThis district | 58.7% | 66.8% |
| Berkeley Unified | 66.5% | 71.7% |
| New Haven Unified | 39.9% | 49.7% |
How we compare low-income results
“Typical” is the median across 339 California unified districts with 2026 results, a reported low-income population, and at least 20 low-income tested students in each subject. Each district counts once. This compares proficiency for low-income students, rather than the gap between income groups.
