Is this your district? Email the board to prioritize reading!
Email BoardLinden Unified
San Joaquin County school performance
Linden Unified is badly underperforming.
Reading and math results average to the 40th percentile among California school districts.
Only 38.5% of students met California's reading standard, and it is trending down slightly.
Math is weaker: 28.7% of students met California's math standard, but it is slowly trending up.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 38.5% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 28.7% |
| District Reading Rank | 623 / 977 (36th percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 543 / 977 (45th percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 21:1 |
| Spend per Student | $19,219 |
| Schools in District | 5 |
| Student Enrollment | 2,339 |
| Low-Income Students | 1,687 (72.1%) |
| English Learners | 461 (19.7%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading rose 0.1 points from last year and fell 1.3 points over the full period. Math fell 1.0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rebecca Hall Board President - Area 1 [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Jennifer Trotter Vice President - Area 4 [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Marla Livengood Board Clerk - Area 2 [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Eric Nims Board Member - Area 5 [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Marlene Von Berg Board Member - Area 3 [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 17.9 points in reading. It narrowed over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
10.3% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 43.6% of English-only students. The gap narrowed as English-learner results rose and English-only results fell.
•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 18.9 points in math. It held steady over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
9.8% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 33.8% of English-only students. The gap widened as English-learner results fell 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 Linden Unified rank in California?
Linden Unified ranks No. 623 of 977 in reading and No. 543 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between Linden Unified’s schools?
Among the 2 schools serving K–8, proficiency ranges from 26.5% to 44.5% in reading and 18.3% to 37.4% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across Linden Unified’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 2 of 5 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 4 of 5.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in Linden Unified compare with other districts?
Low-income reading proficiency is 33.5%, compared with 35.1% at a typical California unified district. In math, it is 23.4%, compared with 23.6%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with Linden Unified?
Unified districts in San Joaquin County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Linden UnifiedThis district | 28.7% | 38.5% |
| Escalon Unified | 33.2% | 42.2% |
| Banta Unified | 13.9% | 27.9% |
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.
