Is this your district? Email the board to prioritize reading!
Email BoardCentral Unified
Fresno County school performance
Central Unified is underperforming.
Reading and math results average to the 49th percentile among California school districts.
Only 44.3% of students met California's reading standard, but it is trending up slightly.
Math is weaker: 31.0% of students met California's math standard, but it is trending up slightly.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 44.3% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 31.0% |
| District Reading Rank | 503 / 977 (49th percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 498 / 977 (49th percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 23:1 |
| Spend per Student | $18,252 |
| Schools in District | 25 |
| Student Enrollment | 15,956 |
| Low-Income Students | 12,708 (79.6%) |
| English Learners | 2,097 (13.1%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading rose 0.1 points from last year and rose 2.6 points over the full period. Math rose 0.9 points from last year and rose 2.3 points over the full period.
•Math +2.3 percentage pointsBoard Members
| name | elected | up for re-election |
|---|---|---|
Yesenia Z. Carrillo Board President [email protected] | 2018 | 2026This year! |
Joshua Sellers Board Vice President [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Nabil Kherfan Board Clerk [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Jaspreet Sidhu Trustee [email protected] | 2024 | 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 16.7 points in reading. It narrowed slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
5.9% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 44.1% 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 16.0 points in math. It narrowed slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
7.2% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 30.2% of English-only students. The gap widened 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 Central Unified rank in California?
Central Unified ranks No. 503 of 977 in reading and No. 498 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between Central Unified’s schools?
Among the 13 schools serving K–6, proficiency ranges from 31.2% to 66.2% in reading and 21.9% to 59.5% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across Central Unified’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 16 of 23 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 16 of 23. 1 school has a different reporting period and is excluded.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in Central Unified compare with other districts?
Low-income reading proficiency is 41.1%, compared with 35.1% at a typical California unified district. In math, it is 27.9%, compared with 23.6%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with Central Unified?
Unified districts in Fresno County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Central UnifiedThis district | 31.0% | 44.3% |
| Sanger Unified | 43.7% | 55.2% |
| Kings Canyon Joint Unified | 45.8% | 57.5% |
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.
