Is this your district? Email the board to prioritize reading!
Email BoardGlendale Unified
Los Angeles County school performance
Reading and math results average to the 83rd percentile among California school districts.
60.7% of students met California's reading standard, and it is trending up slightly.
54.6% of students met California's math standard, but it is slowly trending up.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 60.7% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 54.6% |
| District Reading Rank | 188 / 977 (81st percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 152 / 977 (85th percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 23:1 |
| Spend per Student | $16,465 |
| Schools in District | 31 |
| Student Enrollment | 25,294 |
| Low-Income Students | 16,038 (63.3%) |
| English Learners | 5,646 (22.3%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading rose 0.6 points from last year and rose 0.9 points over the full period. Math rose 2.4 points from last year and rose 3.5 points over the full period.
•Math +3.5 percentage pointsBoard Members
| name | elected | up for re-election |
|---|---|---|
Ingrid Gunnell Board President [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Kathleen Cross Board President [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Telly Tse Board Clerk [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Neda Farid Member [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Shant Sahakian Member [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
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 24.9 points in reading. It narrowed slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
12.8% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 70.6% 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 widened slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
20.1% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 62.0% 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 Glendale Unified rank in California?
Glendale Unified ranks No. 188 of 977 in reading and No. 152 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between Glendale Unified’s schools?
Among the 14 schools serving K–6, proficiency ranges from 38.1% to 85.8% in reading and 26.2% to 83.0% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across Glendale Unified’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 17 of 30 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 17 of 30. 1 school has a different reporting period and is excluded.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in Glendale Unified compare with other districts?
Low-income reading proficiency is 52.5%, compared with 35.1% at a typical California unified district. In math, it is 46.6%, compared with 23.6%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with Glendale Unified?
Unified districts in Los Angeles County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Glendale UnifiedThis district | 54.6% | 60.7% |
| Downey Unified | 44.3% | 57.4% |
| Torrance Unified | 61.3% | 67.9% |
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.
