School district · Riverside County

Palm Springs Unified schools

Palm Springs Unified’s 17 public elementary schools run from the 2nd to the 59th percentile among the 5,726 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests).

Elementary · 17 schools

from 2nd to 59th · among 5,726 California elementary schools we score · spring 2026 tests

  • Sunny Sands Elementary: 59th percentile, Solid
  • Rio Vista Elementary: 57th percentile, Solid
  • Cielo Vista Charter: 55th percentile, Solid
  • Katherine Finchy Elementary: 47th percentile, Developing
  • Cathedral City Elementary: 45th percentile, Developing
  • Landau Elementary: 42nd percentile, Developing
  • Desert Learning Academy: 39th percentile, Developing
  • Rancho Mirage Elementary: 29th percentile, Developing
  • Cahuilla Elementary: 27th percentile, Developing
  • Della S. Lindley Elementary: 22nd percentile, Needs Support
  • Agua Caliente Elementary: 17th percentile, Needs Support
  • Julius Corsini Elementary: 8th percentile, Needs Support
  • Bubbling Wells Elementary: 8th percentile, Needs Support
  • Vista del Monte Elementary: 7th percentile, Needs Support
  • Cabot Yerxa Elementary: 6th percentile, Needs Support
  • Bella Vista Elementary: 2nd percentile, Needs Support
  • Two Bunch Palms Elementary: 2nd percentile, Needs Support
8Needs Support
6Developing
3Solid
0Strong

One dot per school.

Middle and high school pictures

Middle · 7 schools

from 3rd to 68th · among 2,529 California middle schools we score · spring 2026 tests

  • Cielo Vista Charter: 68th percentile, Solid
  • James Workman Middle: 46th percentile, Developing
  • Raymond Cree Middle: 34th percentile, Developing
  • Desert Learning Academy: 30th percentile, Developing
  • Nellie N. Coffman Middle: 23rd percentile, Needs Support
  • Desert Springs Middle: 13th percentile, Needs Support
  • Painted Hills Middle: 3rd percentile, Needs Support
3Needs Support
3Developing
1Solid
0Strong

High · 5 schools

from 11th to 45th · among 1,498 California high schools we score · spring 2025 tests

  • Rancho Mirage High: 45th percentile, Developing
  • Palm Springs High: 35th percentile, Developing
  • Cathedral City High: 26th percentile, Developing
  • Desert Hot Springs High: 16th percentile, Needs Support
  • Desert Learning Academy: 11th percentile, Needs Support
2Needs Support
3Developing
0Solid
0Strong

One dot per school. Each stage is placed only among California schools at its own level. 2 of the 26 ranked schools teach more than one level, 1 of them all three, so they appear in more than one picture.

  • 26 ranked schools
  • 1 school not ranked statewide

Schools around Palm Springs Unified

27 listed public schools with mapped locations.

Open full map →

Loading school locations…

Percentile among California schools at the same level

  • Strong75th+
  • Solid50–74th
  • Developing25–49th
  • Needs Supportbelow 25th
  • Not scored

The school lists on this page are also available without the map.

Elementary schools

Which elementary schools in Palm Springs Unified score highest?

Sunny Sands Elementary is highest, at the 59th percentile.

That’s higher than 59 in 100 of the 5,726 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests).

Highest in Palm Springs Unified

Each percentile compares a school with California schools at its own level.

Show the other 14 elementary schools
Context

The average elementary school in Palm Springs Unified had 25 in 100 students chronically absent (missed 10% or more of school days) in 2025–26; the average California elementary school we score had 17 in 100. Both are averages of school rates, each school counted once.

Middle schools

Which middle schools in Palm Springs Unified score highest?

Cielo Vista Charter is highest, at the 68th percentile.

That’s higher than 68 in 100 of the 2,529 California middle schools we score (spring 2026 tests).

Highest in Palm Springs Unified

Each percentile compares a school with California schools at its own level.

Show the other 4 middle schools
Context

The average middle school in Palm Springs Unified had 26 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California middle school we score had 18 in 100.

High schools

Which high schools in Palm Springs Unified score highest?

Rancho Mirage High is highest, at the 45th percentile.

That’s higher than 45 in 100 of the 1,498 California high schools we score (spring 2025 tests).

Highest in Palm Springs Unified

Each percentile compares a school with California schools at its own level.

Show the other 2 high schools
Context

The average high school in Palm Springs Unified had 29 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California high school we score had 22 in 100.

1 high school not ranked statewide

The district

Where does Palm Springs Unified’s money go, and what does it plan?

Palm Springs Unified spent $24,457 per student in the 2024–25 school year.

The typical California district spent $20,491. About 61 cents of every Palm Springs Unified dollar went to classroom instruction.

Spending by function

Day-to-day spending per student in average daily attendance, from the district’s annual financial report (SACS) to the California Department of Education. District-wide: it includes central administration and costs never assigned to one campus.

Share by function, 2024–25

  • Instruction61%
  • Instruction support11%
  • Student services10%
  • Administration6%
  • Buildings & maintenance11%
  • Other1%

Shares of the same spending total, by the report’s spending categories, rounded so they add up to 100. Names are simplified from the report’s own categories.

What the district plans

$137.9 million

planned in its 2026–27 plan for 54 funded actions in 6 goals. That’s 29% of its $468.2 million general fund budget. These are planned amounts; the district reports what it spent in a later plan.

The plan in short

Source: the district’s yearly spending plan (Local Control and Accountability Plan, or LCAP, 247 pages), as posted to the California School Dashboard.

Where the money goes

Three actions take 40% of the money. The plan itself puts 73% of it toward staff.

  • Expanded Learning Program $25.4 million
  • Additional Collaboration & Instructional Time $22.9 million
  • Broad Course of Study and Class Size Reduction $7.2 million
  • 51 other actions
Reading, math and catch-up help

8 of the plan’s 54 funded actions name reading, math, catch-up help or English learners in their titles.

Actions whose titles name reading, math, catch-up help or English learners
  • Reading $0.3 million
  • Math $0.6 million
  • Catch-up help $7.5 million
  • English learners $2.4 million

An action naming two of these appears under both.

Largest of these

  • MTSS - Academic Supports$6.7 million
  • English Learner Support$2.4 million
  • MTSS - ELA and Math Intervention Systems$306,900
For high-need students (English learners, low-income students and foster youth), what changed and what its goals measure
For high-need students

It plans $93.5 million in extra services for English learners, low-income students and foster youth. For 2025–26, it planned $93.2 million and estimates it spent $91.3 million, $1.9 million (2%) less than planned (our arithmetic).

What changed

The total is $1.3 million (1%) lower than in the 2025–26 plan. The biggest change in dollars is Technical Assistance - Academics, which went from $4.4 million to $2.1 million.

Largest cuts

  • Technical Assistance - Academics−⁠$2.2 million
  • Organized Recess and Supervision−⁠$655,532
  • Instructional Coaches−⁠$396,111

Largest increases

  • Staff Professional Development+⁠$954,912
  • Additional Collaboration & Instructional Time+⁠$916,838
  • Dual Immersion Program+⁠$425,342

New in the 2026–27 plan

  • Diversity and Equity$463,724

Ask: What did Technical Assistance - Academics pay for, and what changes now that the 2026–27 plan gives it $2.2 million less?

What its goals measure

Read these state results for the district’s own schools as context for the goals they measure; results alone can’t show what the plan caused.

What its goals measure: state results, 2024–25 and 2025–26
Measure2024–252025–26Change
English, every tested grade: Proficient or Advanced in 2025–26, met or exceeded in 2024–25Goal 134%35%up 1 pt
Math, every tested grade: Proficient or Advanced in 2025–26, met or exceeded in 2024–25Goal 121%21%no change
Chronically absentCounted across all the district’s students, not averaged by schoolGoal 330 in 10033 in 1003 more in 100
Suspended at least onceGoal 34.3%3.1%down 1.2 pts

Goals 4, 5 and 6 track named schools and Goal 2 tracks other measures, so they aren’t shown here.

Figures from CDE’s state test, chronic absence and suspension files. Test figures cover every grade the district tests (California tests grades 3–8 and 11), so they differ from a profile’s rated grades. We combined the district’s schools ourselves, weighted by students and leaving out charter schools. Chronically absent means a student missed 10% or more of school days.

The plan’s own titles and amounts
  • Expanded Learning Program · $25,370,340
  • Additional Collaboration & Instructional Time · $22,913,502
  • Broad Course of Study and Class Size Reduction · $7,177,216
The full plan6 goals, 67 measures and where the money goes

We calculate each action’s share of the plan by dividing its planned amount by the total of the plan’s funded actions ($137.9 million).

Where does the money go?

78% to Goal 1. Each box is one action, sized by its planned dollars and coloured by its change since last year’s plan. Tap a box to open its goal.

G1
G3

Change since the 2025–26 plan, same title

  • fell 25% or more
  • fell 10–25%
  • fell 2–10%
  • within 2%
  • grew 2–10%
  • grew 10–25%
  • grew 25% or more
  • new or renamed title
  • not compared: unconfirmed, or repeated across goals

Every goal, in the plan’s order

Goal 1All Palm Springs Unified School District students will demonstrate mastery of grade level content and will…$107.2 million78% of action budgets

“All Palm Springs Unified School District students will demonstrate mastery of grade level content and will graduate high school prepared with the academic and technical skills necessary for college and career success” p. 20 ↗

21 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $107.3 million (−⁠$149,143)

Largest funded actions

  1. Expanded Learning Program$25.4 millionaction 1.19 · p. 200 ↗
  2. Additional Collaboration & Instructional Time$22.9 millionaction 1.3 · p. 198 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  3. Broad Course of Study and Class Size Reduction$7.2 millionaction 1.11 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  4. MTSS - Academic Supports$6.7 millionaction 1.5 · p. 198 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $580,916 is state funding counted toward those services
  5. Enhanced Elementary Learning Opportunities$6.6 millionaction 1.17 · p. 200 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services

16 more funded actions in this goal

  • School Site Allocations · action 1.14 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$5.4 million
  • Technology Implementation and Support Services · action 1.4 · p. 198 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$3.7 million
  • Staff Professional Development · action 1.2 · p. 198 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $2.6 million is state funding counted toward those services$3.6 million
  • Dual Immersion Program · action 1.8 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $3.2 million is state funding counted toward those services$3.4 million
  • High School Graduation and A-G Support · action 1.9 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$3.4 million
  • Instructional Coaches · action 1.1 · p. 198 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $2.8 million is state funding counted toward those services$2.9 million
  • CTE Programs · action 1.10 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $2.7 million is state funding counted toward those services$2.9 million
  • Recruit & Retain Highly Qualified Staff · action 1.15 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $2.6 million is state funding counted toward those services$2.9 million
  • English Learner Support · action 1.6 · p. 198 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $1.7 million is state funding counted toward those services$2.4 million
  • Technical Assistance - Academics · action 1.20 · p. 200 ↗$2.1 million
  • Supplemental Inclusion Instructional Model Staffing · action 1.13 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$1.7 million
  • Kindergarten Support · action 1.16 · p. 200 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$1.3 million
  • Inclusion Instructional Model Support Personnel · action 1.12 · p. 199 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$1.3 million
  • Arts Education and Enrichment · action 1.18 · p. 200 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.9 million
  • Compliance and Improvement Monitoring (CIM) Plan Implementation · action 1.21 · p. 200 ↗$0.5 million
  • Long Term English Learner (LTEL) Support · action 1.7 · p. 198 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $14,738 is state funding counted toward those servicesunder $0.1 million

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Technical Assistance - Academics−⁠$2.2 million$4.4 million → $2.1 million · p. 200 ↗
  2. Staff Professional Development+⁠$1.0 million$2.6 million → $3.6 million · p. 198 ↗
  3. Additional Collaboration & Instructional Time+⁠$0.9 million$22.0 million → $22.9 million · p. 198 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • Expanded Learning Program · $25.1 million → $25.4 million · p. 200 ↗+⁠$0.3 million
  • Broad Course of Study and Class Size Reduction · $7.4 million → $7.2 million · p. 199 ↗−⁠$0.2 million
  • MTSS - Academic Supports · $6.3 million → $6.7 million · p. 198 ↗+⁠$0.4 million
  • Enhanced Elementary Learning Opportunities · $6.4 million → $6.6 million · p. 200 ↗+⁠$0.1 million
  • School Site Allocations · $5.6 million → $5.4 million · p. 199 ↗−⁠$0.2 million
  • Technology Implementation and Support Services · $3.8 million → $3.7 million · p. 198 ↗−⁠$0.1 million
  • Dual Immersion Program · $3.0 million → $3.4 million · p. 199 ↗+⁠$0.4 million
  • High School Graduation and A-G Support · $3.0 million → $3.4 million · p. 199 ↗+⁠$0.4 million
  • Instructional Coaches · $3.3 million → $2.9 million · p. 198 ↗−⁠$0.4 million
  • CTE Programs · $2.9 million → $2.9 million · p. 199 ↗−⁠$28,349
  • Recruit & Retain Highly Qualified Staff · $3.2 million → $2.9 million · p. 199 ↗−⁠$0.3 million
  • English Learner Support · $2.4 million → $2.4 million · p. 198 ↗+⁠$0.1 million
  • Supplemental Inclusion Instructional Model Staffing · $1.8 million → $1.7 million · p. 199 ↗−⁠$0.1 million
  • Kindergarten Support · $1.3 million → $1.3 million · p. 200 ↗−⁠$49,870
  • Inclusion Instructional Model Support Personnel · $1.3 million → $1.3 million · p. 199 ↗+⁠$30,991
  • Arts Education and Enrichment · $922,323 → $922,021 · p. 200 ↗−⁠$302
  • Compliance and Improvement Monitoring (CIM) Plan Implementation · $457,970 → $466,141 · p. 200 ↗+⁠$8,171
  • Long Term English Learner (LTEL) Support · $125,604 → $34,738 · p. 198 ↗−⁠$90,866

How the plan measures it · 24 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 20 ↗.

Goal 2Palm Springs Unified School District will collaborate with families and our local communities to develop and…$2.8 million2% of action budgets

“Palm Springs Unified School District will collaborate with families and our local communities to develop and maintain positive parent, student, and community involvement and engagement to promote and support student success” p. 67 ↗

4 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $2.6 million (+⁠$198,032)

Largest funded actions

  1. School Site Parent Support Staff$1.1 millionaction 2.2 · p. 200 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  2. Communication$0.8 millionaction 2.3 · p. 200 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  3. District Family Engagement Center$0.5 millionaction 2.1 · p. 200 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  4. Diversity and Equity$0.5 millionaction 2.4 · p. 200 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Communication+⁠$366,244$422,722 → $788,966 · p. 200 ↗
  2. School Site Parent Support Staff−⁠$0.2 million$1.2 million → $1.1 million · p. 200 ↗
  3. District Family Engagement Center+⁠$29,441$494,531 → $523,972 · p. 200 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • Diversity and Equity · $463,724 · p. 200 ↗new or renamed

A reworded title counts as new.

How the plan measures it · 11 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 67 ↗.

Goal 3Palm Springs Unified School District will provide healthy and physically and emotionally safe learning…$25.5 million19% of action budgets

“Palm Springs Unified School District will provide healthy and physically and emotionally safe learning environments that foster and support all students” p. 77 ↗

14 funded actions · 2025–26 plan: $26.8 million (−⁠$1.3 million)

Largest funded actions

  1. Bus Transportation$4.1 millionaction 3.13 · p. 202 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  2. Assistant Principals$4.1 millionaction 3.4 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  3. Supplemental Counselors$3.9 millionaction 3.1 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services
  4. MTSS SEL and Behavioral Supports$3.7 millionaction 3.6 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $2.1 million is state funding counted toward those services
  5. Mental Health Support$2.7 millionaction 3.2 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $2.5 million is state funding counted toward those services

9 more funded actions in this goal

  • Organized Recess and Supervision · action 3.10 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$1.6 million
  • Campus Safety and Security · action 3.7 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$1.5 million
  • Prevention Specialists · action 3.12 · p. 202 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $5,000 is state funding counted toward those services$1.2 million
  • School Social Workers · action 3.8 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $1,000 is state funding counted toward those services$1.0 million
  • Health Services and Nursing Staff · action 3.9 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.5 million
  • Community Liaisons · action 3.11 · p. 202 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $3,500 is state funding counted toward those services$0.4 million
  • Technical Assistance - School Attendance Plans · action 3.14 · p. 202 ↗$0.4 million
  • Foster Youth Community Liaisons · action 3.3 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services · of which $102,234 is state funding counted toward those services$0.2 million
  • Driving Achievement, Resilience and Transformation (DART) Team · action 3.5 · p. 201 ↗ · marked as contributing to high-need services$0.1 million

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Organized Recess and Supervision−⁠$0.7 million$2.2 million → $1.6 million · p. 201 ↗
  2. MTSS SEL and Behavioral Supports−⁠$0.3 million$4.1 million → $3.7 million · p. 201 ↗
  3. Bus Transportation−⁠$0.3 million$4.4 million → $4.1 million · p. 202 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • Assistant Principals · $4.1 million → $4.1 million · p. 201 ↗−⁠$0.1 million
  • Supplemental Counselors · $4.1 million → $3.9 million · p. 201 ↗−⁠$0.2 million
  • Mental Health Support · $2.7 million → $2.7 million · p. 201 ↗+⁠$19,035
  • Campus Safety and Security · $1.5 million → $1.5 million · p. 201 ↗+⁠$31,175
  • Prevention Specialists · $1.2 million → $1.2 million · p. 202 ↗−⁠$2,040
  • School Social Workers · $943,431 → $999,805 · p. 201 ↗+⁠$56,374
  • Health Services and Nursing Staff · $491,161 → $498,942 · p. 201 ↗+⁠$7,781
  • Community Liaisons · $382,194 → $427,537 · p. 202 ↗+⁠$45,343
  • Technical Assistance - School Attendance Plans · $370,007 → $357,353 · p. 202 ↗−⁠$12,654
  • Foster Youth Community Liaisons · $190,668 → $244,342 · p. 201 ↗+⁠$53,674
  • Driving Achievement, Resilience and Transformation (DART) Team · $111,500 → $112,248 · p. 201 ↗+⁠$748

How the plan measures it · 11 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 77 ↗.

Goal 4 · Equity Multiplier Focus GoalMt. San Jacinto High School will improve student outcomes as reported on the California School Dashboard…$1.2 million1% of action budgets

“Mt. San Jacinto High School will improve student outcomes as reported on the California School Dashboard through continued development of systems of excellence within the alternative education setting. This focused improvement will include: • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at MSJ in ELA are in the Orange performance level (SED, Hisp) and students with disabilities due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal for ELA is to systemically improve CAASPP ELA results by a minimum average of three scale score points to continue the improvement made resulting in the current Orange performance for the school and all student groups. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, systemic improvement in ELA results targeting more than ten scale score points for performance gap closure for students with disabilities due to low performance. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at MSJ in mathematics are in the Orange performance level (SED, Hisp) and students with disabilities due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal for mathematics is to systemically improve CAASPP Math results by a minimum average of 3 scale score points to continue the improvement made resulting in the current Orange performance for the school and all student groups. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, systemic improvement in mathematics results targeting more than ten scale score points for performance gap closure for students with disabilities due to low performance. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at MSJ in ELPI are the in the Yellow performance level (EL and LTEL). Therefore the goal for ELPI is to improve outcomes for language acquisition by at least two percentage points as measured by the English Learner Progress Indicator (ELPI) to continue the improvement made resulting in the current Yellow performance for both English Learners and Long-Term ELs. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at MSJ in graduation rate are LTELs in the Orange performance level and students with disabilities due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal is to increase graduation rate by 1.0% overall and all students groups, with increased focus on improving outcomes for Long-term English Learners to address an Orange performance level. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, improvement in graduation rate targeting more than 2.0% for performance gap closure for homeless students due to rates lower than other student groups” p. 113 ↗

5 funded actions · reworded since the 2025–26 plan

Largest funded actions

  1. MTSS - SEL and Behavioral Supports for Alternative Education Students$380,146action 4.5 · p. 202 ↗
  2. MTSS - ELA and Math Intervention Systems$306,900action 4.3 · p. 202 ↗
  3. CTE Program and Dual Enrollment Expansion$217,901action 4.2 · p. 202 ↗
  4. Arts Instruction Expansion$186,487action 4.1 · p. 202 ↗
  5. Alternative Education Professional Development$111,228action 4.4 · p. 202 ↗

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. MTSS - ELA and Math Intervention Systems+⁠$139,100$167,800 → $306,900 · p. 202 ↗
  2. Alternative Education Professional Development+⁠$86,228$25,000 → $111,228 · p. 202 ↗
  3. Arts Instruction Expansion+⁠$36,273$150,214 → $186,487 · p. 202 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • MTSS - SEL and Behavioral Supports for Alternative Education Students · $385,049 → $380,146 · p. 202 ↗−⁠$4,903
  • CTE Program and Dual Enrollment Expansion · $217,901 · p. 202 ↗new or renamed

A reworded title counts as new.

How the plan measures it · 7 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 113 ↗.

Goal 5 · Equity Multiplier Focus GoalDesert Learning Academy will improve student outcomes as reported on the California School Dashboard through…$827,8271% of action budgets

“Desert Learning Academy will improve student outcomes as reported on the California School Dashboard through continued development of systems of excellence within the alternative education setting. This focused improvement will include: • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at DLA in ELA are in the Orange performance level (EL, SED, Hisp) and students with disabilities due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal for ELA is to continue to improve CAASPP ELA results by a minimum average of three scale score points for all student groups as part of ongoing improvement in this area. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, systemic improvement in ELA results targeting more than ten scale score points for performance gap closure for Long-term English Leaners and students with disabilities due to low performance. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at DLA in mathematics are in the Red performance level (EL, SED, Hisp) and multiple groups due to low performance but no indicated performance level color (LTEL, SWD). Therefore the goal for mathematics is to continue to improve CAASPP Math results by a minimum average of three scale score points for all student groups as part of ongoing improvement in this area. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, systemic improvement in math results targeting more than ten scale score points for performance gap closure for Long-term English Learners and students with disabilities due to low performance. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at DLA in ELPI are ELs in the Orange performance level. Therefore the goal for ELPI is to improve performance in the ELPI percentage as measured by the CA School Dashboard by 2% for both the EL student group and the LTEL student group. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at DLA in graduation rate are in the Orange performance level overall and White students due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal for graduation rate is to increase graduation rate by 1.0% or more to address an overall Orange performance level for the all student group and similar increases for all individual student groups. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, increase of graduation rate for the White student group by more than 2.0% for performance gap closure due to a reported rate lower than other student groups. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at DLA in CCI are SED students in the Yellow performance level and White students due to low performance but” p. 127 ↗

6 funded actions · reworded since the 2025–26 plan

Largest funded actions

  1. Mathematics Course and Intervention Expansion$220,681action 5.2 · p. 203 ↗
  2. School Community Outreach$188,643action 5.3 · p. 203 ↗
  3. Art Instruction Expansion$181,119action 5.1 · p. 202 ↗
  4. MTSS System Improvement$132,384action 5.4 · p. 203 ↗
  5. Broad Course of Study Improvements$65,000action 5.6 · p. 203 ↗

1 more funded action in this goal

  • Professional Development · action 5.5 · p. 203 ↗$40,000

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Mathematics Course and Intervention Expansion−⁠$146,287$366,968 → $220,681 · p. 203 ↗
  2. School Community Outreach+⁠$100,204$88,439 → $188,643 · p. 203 ↗
  3. Art Instruction Expansion+⁠$40,740$140,379 → $181,119 · p. 202 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • MTSS System Improvement · $166,889 → $132,384 · p. 203 ↗−⁠$34,505
  • Broad Course of Study Improvements · $65,000 · p. 203 ↗new or renamed
  • Professional Development · $40,000 · p. 203 ↗new or renamed

A reworded title counts as new.

How the plan measures it · 8 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 127 ↗.

Goal 6 · Equity Multiplier Focus GoalJulius Corsini Elementary (JC) will improve student outcomes as reported on the California School Dashboard…$320,791under 1% of action budgets

“Julius Corsini Elementary (JC) will improve student outcomes as reported on the California School Dashboard through continued development of systems of excellence within the alternative education setting. This focused improvement will include: • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at JC in ELA are in the Orange performance level (EL, SED, Hisp) and students with disabilities due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal for ELA is to systemically improve CAASPP ELA results by a minimum average of three scale score points to address Orange performance indicators for the All Students group, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English Learners, and Hispanic students. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, systemic improvement in ELA results targeting more than ten scale score points for performance gap closure for students with disabilities due to low performance. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at JC in mathematics are in the Red performance level (SED, Hisp) and students with disabilities due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal for mathematics is to systemically improve CAASPP Math results by a minimum average of three scale score points to address Red performance indicators for the All Students group, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and Hispanic students. Systemic improvement by more than ten scale score points for the English Learners student group to address low performance in math. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, systemic improvement in math results targeting more than ten scale score points for performance gap closure for students with disabilities due to low performance. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at JC in ELPI are ELs in the Red performance level. Therefore the goal for ELPI is to provide targeted support for English Learner students to address the Red performance level in ELPI, resulting in improved ELPAC results by a minimum of two percentage points. • Per the 2025 CA School Dashboard, the lowest performing groups at JC in chronic absenteeism are African American students in the Red performance level and students of Two or More Races due to low performance but no indicated performance level color. Therefore the goal for chronic absenteeism is to decrease chronic absenteeism rates by a minimum of two percentage points as measured by the CA School Dashboard Chronic Absenteeism Indicator to maintain improvement from the prior year and as part of addressing Red performance levels for African American students. Although not identified with a performance indicator color due to student population size, reduction of chronic” p. 141 ↗

4 funded actions · reworded since the 2025–26 plan

Largest funded actions

  1. MTSS - Intervention Expansion$148,928action 6.3 · p. 203 ↗
  2. School Community Outreach$70,263action 6.2 · p. 203 ↗
  3. Professional Learning Communities Professional Development$60,000action 6.1 · p. 203 ↗
  4. ELA and Mathematics Professional Development and Collaborative Planning$41,600action 6.4 · p. 204 ↗

Changes from last year’s plan, same title

  1. Professional Learning Communities Professional Development−⁠$120,000$180,000 → $60,000 · p. 203 ↗
  2. School Community Outreach−⁠$64,899$135,162 → $70,263 · p. 203 ↗
  3. MTSS - Intervention Expansion+⁠$61,442$87,486 → $148,928 · p. 203 ↗

Every other line in this goal, against last year’s plan

  • ELA and Mathematics Professional Development and Collaborative Planning · $65,000 → $41,600 · p. 204 ↗−⁠$23,400

How the plan measures it · 6 measures

None of these has an all-students line we can quote; the plan’s table lists them from p. 141 ↗.

All amounts are planned. We read them from the PDF and added up each goal’s actions ourselves. Page links open the plan at that page.

Who goes to the district’s schools
Who attends

Student mix

2024–25 · October enrollment count, 20,008 students
1. Hispanic or Latino: 82%2. White: 8%3. Black or African American: 4%4. Two or more races: 3%5. Filipino: 2%6. Asian: <1%7. American Indian or Alaska Native: <1%8. Pacific Islander: <1%Student mix2024–25
  1. Hispanic or Latino82%
  2. White8%
  3. Black or African American4%
  4. Two or more races3%
  5. Filipino2%
  6. Asian<1%
  7. American Indian or Alaska Native<1%
  8. Pacific Islander<1%
  9. Not reported0%
Shares use the district's own October enrollment counts from the CDE, including its charter schools.

Free or reduced-price meals

94%

Across California, 63% of students qualify.

2024–25 · 18,895 of 20,007 students qualify, summed from the CDE’s meal counts for every school it lists under the district, charters included. It comes from a different CDE file than the student mix, so the two totals differ.

The district’s state records

Is the state giving the district extra help?

Palm Springs Unified isn’t getting extra state help in 2026, only the standard support every district gets.

How English learners moved up on the state’s English test

From spring 2025 to spring 2026, 44% of the district’s English learners moved up at least one level on the state’s English test (ELPAC), or stayed at the top (1,740 of 3,957 students). California: 47%. It counts students moving up the test’s levels, so a student can count here before becoming fluent.

2 schools getting state support, 2025–26

Cahuilla Elementary (Extra targeted support) · Julius Corsini Elementary (Targeted support)

This list covers the district’s own schools; each charter school’s page shows its record. Federal designation under the Every Student Succeeds Act, 2025–26.

Sources: District help (CDE) ↗ · English learner progress (CDE) ↗ · School support (CDE) ↗. State results from the 2026 California School Dashboard.

Which places nearby can you look at next?

Cities in the district

More places (4)

Districts nearby

Common questions

Which public schools in Palm Springs Unified rank highest?

Elementary: Sunny Sands Elementary, 59th percentile (Solid). Middle: Cielo Vista Charter, 68th percentile (Solid). High: Rancho Mirage High, 45th percentile (Developing). Each percentile is among the California schools at the same level we score. A rank doesn’t decide fit or whether a child can enroll.

Does living in the Palm Springs Unified district decide which school my child attends?

Not by itself. Attendance boundaries, programs, transfers and space all matter. Confirm the school for your address, grade and program with the district.
More questions (5)

Are the public schools in Palm Springs Unified good?

Palm Springs Unified’s 17 public elementary schools run from the 2nd to the 59th percentile among the 5,726 California elementary schools we score (spring 2026 tests). By band: 3 Solid, 6 Developing and 8 Needs Support. Palm Springs Unified’s 7 public middle schools run from the 3rd to the 68th percentile among the 2,529 California middle schools we score (spring 2026 tests). By band: 1 Solid, 3 Developing and 3 Needs Support. Palm Springs Unified’s 5 public high schools run from the 11th to the 45th percentile among the 1,498 California high schools we score (spring 2025 tests). By band: 3 Developing and 2 Needs Support. A percentile compares a school with California public schools at the same level that we score. How we score schools.

How does chronic absence in Palm Springs Unified compare with California?

The average elementary school in Palm Springs Unified had 25 in 100 students chronically absent (missed 10% or more of school days) in 2025–26; the average California elementary school we score had 17 in 100. Both are averages of school rates, each school counted once. The average middle school in Palm Springs Unified had 26 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California middle school we score had 18 in 100. The average high school in Palm Springs Unified had 29 in 100 students chronically absent in 2025–26; the average California high school we score had 22 in 100. These are averages of school rates: each school counts once, whatever its size.

How much does Palm Springs Unified spend per student?

Palm Springs Unified spent $24,457 per student in the 2024–25 school year. The typical California district spent $20,491. About 61 cents of every Palm Springs Unified dollar went to classroom instruction. Day-to-day spending per student in average daily attendance, from its annual financial report to the California Department of Education. The district’s spending, by function.

What is in Palm Springs Unified’s 2026–27 spending plan?

The district’s 2026–27 spending plan puts $137.9 million into 54 funded actions in 6 goals, 29% of its $468.2 million general fund budget. Its largest goal holds $107.2 million, 78% of the action budgets. The 2026–27 plan, goal by goal.

Where do these results come from?

California’s state tests (CAASPP): spring 2026 for elementary and middle schools, spring 2025 for high schools, and chronic-absence rates for 2025–26, published by the California Department of Education. Percentiles, bands and Scope Scores are SchoolScope’s calculations. How we score schools.

Sources and methodology

This page lists the public schools governed and funded by Palm Springs Unified, with the district’s spending and state accountability records.

Data source: California Department of Education · CAASPP 2025–26 elementary and middle school; 2024–25 high school

Percentiles, bands and Scope Scores are SchoolScope’s own calculations from these state files.

View CDE data ↗ (opens in a new tab)How Scope Scores work →

Download these schools (CSV)Free to use under CC BY 4.0 with attribution.