McFarland Unified
Kern County school performance
McFarland Unified is badly underperforming.
Reading and math results average to the 33rd percentile among California school districts.
Only 36.3% of students met California's reading standard, but it is slowly trending up.
Math is weaker: 25.2% of students met California's math standard, but it is slowly trending up.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 36.3% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 25.2% |
| District Reading Rank | 676 / 977 (31st percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 638 / 977 (35th percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 24:1 |
| Spend per Student | $18,835 |
| Schools in District | 6 |
| Student Enrollment | 3,282 |
| Low-Income Students | 2,868 (87.4%) |
| English Learners | 1,018 (31.0%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading fell 0.1 points from last year and rose 4.4 points over the full period. Math rose 0.4 points from last year and rose 4.9 points over the full period.
•Math +4.9 percentage pointsBoard Members
| name | elected | up for re-election |
|---|---|---|
All Day Trustee Area Map | N/A | N/A |
Anti-Bullying Information Trustee Area Map | N/A | N/A |
Bullying Reporting Trustee Area Map | N/A | N/A |
District Calendar Trustee Area Map | N/A | N/A |
Spring Break Trustee Area Map | N/A | N/A |
Trustee Area Map The McFarland Unified School District Board of Trustees made a change to the Board elections by transitioning from at-large elections to trustee area elections. Under this new system, board candidates will only be elected by voters residing within their designated trustee area. | N/A | N/A |
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 19.3 points in reading. It widened over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
7.8% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 39.9% 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 14.2 points in math. It widened slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
7.8% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 27.3% 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 McFarland Unified rank in California?
McFarland Unified ranks No. 676 of 977 in reading and No. 638 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between McFarland Unified’s schools?
Among the 3 schools serving K–6, proficiency ranges from 25.5% to 38.1% in reading and 13.7% to 32.3% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across McFarland Unified’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 4 of 6 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 2 of 6.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in McFarland 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 23.6%, compared with 23.6%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with McFarland Unified?
Unified districts in Kern County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| McFarland UnifiedThis district | 25.2% | 36.3% |
| Southern Kern Unified | 19.7% | 34.2% |
| Mojave Unified | 10.7% | 22.6% |
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.
