Is this your district? Email the board to prioritize reading!
Email BoardLivermore Valley Joint Unified
Alameda County school performance
Reading and math results average to the 82nd percentile among California school districts.
61.2% of students met California's reading standard, and it is trending up slightly.
52.2% of students met California's math standard, but it is trending up slightly.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 61.2% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 52.2% |
| District Reading Rank | 181 / 977 (82nd percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 175 / 977 (82nd percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 21:1 |
| Spend per Student | $16,668 |
| Schools in District | 18 |
| Student Enrollment | 12,945 |
| Low-Income Students | 2,633 (20.3%) |
| English Learners | 1,200 (9.3%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading fell 0.7 points from last year and rose 1.1 points over the full period. Math rose 1.7 points from last year and rose 2.9 points over the full period.
•Math +2.9 percentage pointsBoard Members
| name | elected | up for re-election |
|---|---|---|
Steven Drouin President [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Christiaan Vandenheuvel Clerk [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Craig Bueno Member [email protected] | 2014 | 2026This year! |
Deena Kaplanis Member [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Emily Prusso Member [email protected] | 2018 | 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 35.3 points in reading. It widened over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
7.2% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 65.3% 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 36.1 points in math. It widened over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
8.9% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 55.4% 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 Livermore Valley Joint Unified rank in California?
Livermore Valley Joint Unified ranks No. 181 of 977 in reading and No. 175 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between Livermore Valley Joint Unified’s schools?
Among the 9 schools serving K–5, proficiency ranges from 41.2% to 81.3% in reading and 45.7% to 80.1% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across Livermore Valley Joint Unified’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 10 of 18 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 12 of 18.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in Livermore Valley Joint Unified compare with other districts?
Low-income reading proficiency is 34.1%, compared with 35.1% at a typical California unified district. In math, it is 24.4%, compared with 23.6%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with Livermore Valley Joint Unified?
Unified districts in Alameda County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Livermore Valley Joint UnifiedThis district | 52.2% | 61.2% |
| Dublin Unified | 74.1% | 78.1% |
| Pleasanton Unified | 74.3% | 77.9% |
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.
