Is this your district? Email the board to prioritize reading!
Email BoardMurrieta Valley Unified
Riverside County school performance
Reading and math results average to the 81st percentile among California school districts.
63.1% of students met California's reading standard, and it is trending up slightly.
Math is weaker: 49.1% of students met California's math standard, but it is slowly trending up.
| Current Reading Proficiency | 63.1% |
| Current Math Proficiency | 49.1% |
| District Reading Rank | 165 / 977 (83rd percentile) |
| District Math Rank | 204 / 977 (79th percentile) |
| Student / Teacher Ratio | 24:1 |
| Spend per Student | $15,879 |
| Schools in District | 19 |
| Student Enrollment | 21,621 |
| Low-Income Students | 11,718 (54.0%) |
| English Learners | 1,090 (5.0%) |
District Website
Great Schools
Niche
Ed-Data
CAASPPTest score trends
Reading was unchanged from last year and rose 2.8 points over the full period. Math rose 1.4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christine Schmidt Trustee [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Eleanor Cruz Briggs Board Member [email protected] | 2024 | 2028 |
Nancy Young Trustee [email protected] | 2022 | 2026This year! |
Nicolas Pardue Board 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 15.1 points in reading. It narrowed slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
18.9% of English learners meet the reading standard, compared with 63.5% of English-only students. The gap held steady as English-learner results rose 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 17.0 points in math. It narrowed slightly over the period shown.
•English Learners vs English Native
21.6% of English learners meet the math standard, compared with 49.5% of English-only students. The gap narrowed 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
-4.8%Understanding this district
How does Murrieta Valley Unified rank in California?
Murrieta Valley Unified ranks No. 165 of 977 in reading and No. 204 of 977 in math for 2026. These proficiency rankings compare districts across all district types.
How much do results vary between Murrieta Valley Unified’s schools?
Among the 11 schools serving K–5, proficiency ranges from 35.5% to 72.5% in reading and 28.5% to 67.6% in math.
See the district’s schoolsAre results improving across Murrieta Valley Unified’s schools?
Over 2024–2026, reading proficiency rose at 14 of 19 schools with results covering that full period; math rose at 12 of 19.
Compare school trendsHow do low-income students in Murrieta Valley Unified compare with other districts?
Low-income reading proficiency is 56.3%, compared with 35.1% at a typical California unified district. In math, it is 41.4%, compared with 23.6%.
See student-group resultsWhich districts should I compare with Murrieta Valley Unified?
Unified districts in Riverside County. Peers have the closest enrollment sizes.
| District | Math | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| Murrieta Valley UnifiedThis district | 49.1% | 63.1% |
| Lake Elsinore Unified | 25.2% | 39.8% |
| Hemet Unified | 20.3% | 36.0% |
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.
