Home
›
High School Rankings
Fresno County · 2025 · ≥50 seniors
What is UC Reach? UC Reach = unique top-6 UC admits ÷ senior class size — the share of a school's
entire graduating class that reaches the six most selective UCs (
Berkeley,
UCLA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine, Davis). It's a better gauge of school-wide success than admit rate, which only reflects the handful of students who applied.
Why it beats admit rate: if 6 students apply to the top UCs and all get in, that's a 100% admit rate — but at a 1,000-senior school it's a UC Reach Score of just 0.6 (6 ÷ 1,000). By contrast, a school where 250 of 1,000 seniors land a top-UC admit has a UC Reach Score of 25 — far stronger, even though its admit rate is lower.
Why some schools are over 100? Out of every 100 seniors at these schools, the class is generating
more than 100 admissions to the six most selective UCs — meaning the typical strong student is getting in at multiple top campuses (
UCLA +
UCSD, or
Berkeley +
UCSB + Irvine, for example). It's a rare achievement: fewer than 1% of California high schools clear a UC Reach Score of 100.
Top and bottom schools by UC Reach, split public/charter vs private (≥50 seniors).
Scoped to Fresno County — change the County filter above to rescope.
▲ Top 10 Public + Charter
Fresno County
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
107 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Public
|
46 |
| 3 |
Fowler · Public
|
26 |
| 4 |
Fresno · Public
|
22 |
| 5 |
· Public
|
19 |
| 6 |
Fresno · Public
|
18 |
| 7 |
Reedley · Public
|
17 |
| 8 |
Sanger · Public
|
15 |
| 9 |
Fresno · Public
|
15 |
| 10 |
Fresno · Public
|
14 |
▲ Top 10 Private
Fresno County
▼ Bottom 10 Public + Charter
Fresno County
| 1 |
Parlier · Public
|
3 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Public
|
5 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public
|
6 |
| 4 |
Riverdale · Public
|
6 |
| 5 |
Coalinga · Public
|
7 |
| 6 |
Orange Cove · Public
|
7 |
| 7 |
Fresno · Public
|
7 |
| 8 |
Fresno · Public
|
8 |
| 9 |
Kerman · Public
|
8 |
| 10 |
Clovis · Public
|
9 |
▼ Bottom 10 Private
Fresno County
Top UC Reach for schools with senior classes of 25–99. These are typically magnet programs, specialized charters, and small Catholic preps — too small to compare cleanly against comprehensive public high schools, but the most UC-effective small schools in California are here.
▲ Top 10 Small Public + Charter
Fresno County
| 1 |
Reedley · Public
|
41 |
| 2 |
· Public
|
8 |
| 3 |
Tranquillity · Public
|
5 |
▲ Top 10 Small Private
Fresno County
Not enough schools in Fresno County for this list.
Where each UC campus lands its admits, as a share of each high school's senior class. Same 50-senior floor.
Top 10 — UCB Reach
UC Berkeley
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
7 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Private
|
5 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public
|
4 |
| 4 |
Fowler · Public
|
4 |
| 5 |
Fresno · Public
|
3 |
| 6 |
Orange Cove · Public
|
2 |
| 7 |
· Public
|
2 |
| 8 |
Kingsburg · Public
|
2 |
| 9 |
Mendota · Public
|
2 |
| 10 |
Fresno · Public
|
1 |
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
14 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Private
|
4 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public
|
3 |
| 4 |
Fowler · Public
|
3 |
| 5 |
· Public
|
1 |
| 6 |
Fresno · Public
|
1 |
| 7 |
Fresno · Public
|
1 |
| 8 |
Fresno · Public
|
1 |
| 9 |
Fresno · Public
|
1 |
| 10 |
Fresno · Public
|
1 |
Top 10 — UCSD Reach
UC San Diego
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
25 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Private
|
11 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public
|
8 |
| 4 |
Fowler · Public
|
4 |
| 5 |
Fresno · Public
|
4 |
| 6 |
Reedley · Public
|
4 |
| 7 |
Fresno · Public
|
4 |
| 8 |
Fresno · Public
|
4 |
| 9 |
· Public
|
3 |
| 10 |
Mendota · Public
|
3 |
Top 10 — UCSB Reach
UC Santa Barbara
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
17 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Private
|
13 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public
|
9 |
| 4 |
· Public
|
4 |
| 5 |
Fresno · Public
|
4 |
| 6 |
Fresno · Public
|
4 |
| 7 |
Sanger · Public
|
4 |
| 8 |
Reedley · Public
|
4 |
| 9 |
Fresno · Public
|
3 |
| 10 |
Kingsburg · Public
|
3 |
Top 10 — UCI Reach
UC Irvine
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
20 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Public
|
13 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Private
|
12 |
| 4 |
· Public
|
5 |
| 5 |
Fresno · Public
|
4 |
| 6 |
Fowler · Public
|
4 |
| 7 |
Reedley · Public
|
4 |
| 8 |
Caruthers · Public
|
4 |
| 9 |
Mendota · Public
|
3 |
| 10 |
Sanger · Public
|
3 |
Top 10 — UCD Reach
UC Davis
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
22 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Private
|
12 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public
|
10 |
| 4 |
Fowler · Public
|
8 |
| 5 |
Caruthers · Public
|
7 |
| 6 |
Fresno · Public
|
6 |
| 7 |
Fresno · Public
|
6 |
| 8 |
Fresno · Public
|
5 |
| 9 |
Firebaugh · Public
|
4 |
| 10 |
Selma · Public
|
4 |
UC Reach measures who gets in. These lenses measure the upstream pipeline (A-G), the downstream outcome (UC graduation), the capacity that drives the pipeline (counselors), reliability over time (consistency), grade-11 academic preparation (CAASPP SBAC ELA & Math), and private-school financial strength. Click any school for its full profile.
Top 10 — A-G Completion
% of graduates meeting UC/CSU course requirements · 2024-25 cohort
| 1 |
Reedley · Public
|
100.0% |
| 2 |
Fresno · Public
|
98.3% |
| 3 |
· Public
|
98.1% |
| 4 |
· Public
|
95.7% |
| 5 |
Orange Cove · Public
|
87.4% |
| 6 |
Fowler · Public
|
76.2% |
| 7 |
Fresno · Public
|
75.3% |
| 8 |
Fresno · Public
|
75.3% |
| 9 |
Fresno · Public
|
69.7% |
| 10 |
· Public
|
64.7% |
Top 10 — UC 6-Yr Grad Rate
% of UC entrants who finished in 6 years · cohort N ≥ 20
| 1 |
Fresno · Private
|
95.2% |
| 2 |
Fresno · Public
|
95.0% |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public
|
93.8% |
| 4 |
Clovis · Public
|
92.0% |
| 5 |
Selma · Public
|
90.5% |
| 6 |
Fresno · Public
|
90.3% |
| 7 |
Fresno · Public
|
87.5% |
| 8 |
Clovis · Public
|
84.6% |
| 9 |
Fresno · Public
|
82.6% |
| 10 |
Fresno · Public
|
82.6% |
Top 10 — Best Counselor Capacity
Lowest students-per-counselor (ASCA target 250:1) · public/charter, ≥500 students
| 1 |
Fresno · Public
|
144:1 |
| 2 |
Parlier · Public
|
210:1 |
| 3 |
· Public
|
213:1 |
| 4 |
Fresno · Public
|
232:1 |
| 5 |
· Public
|
263:1 |
| 6 |
Fresno · Public
|
266:1 |
| 7 |
· Public
|
269:1 |
| 8 |
Fresno · Public
|
278:1 |
| 9 |
Fresno · Public
|
283:1 |
| 10 |
Fresno · Public
|
291:1 |
Top 10 — Most Consistent
Lowest UC Reach std-dev across 5 years (above-CA-median mean)
| 1 |
avg 16.1 · σ 1.24
|
σ 1.24 |
| 2 |
avg 15.2 · σ 1.31
|
σ 1.31 |
| 3 |
avg 10.3 · σ 1.43
|
σ 1.43 |
| 4 |
avg 24.9 · σ 2.85
|
σ 2.85 |
| 5 |
avg 12.1 · σ 2.87
|
σ 2.87 |
| 6 |
avg 14.1 · σ 3.58
|
σ 3.58 |
| 7 |
avg 16.9 · σ 3.58
|
σ 3.58 |
| 8 |
avg 10.2 · σ 6.06
|
σ 6.06 |
| 9 |
avg 19.4 · σ 7.82
|
σ 7.82 |
| 10 |
avg 31.8 · σ 9.25
|
σ 9.25 |
Top 10 — SBAC ELA met/exceeded
% Met or Exceeded Standard · Grade 11 CAASPP · public/charter · tested ≥30
| 1 |
Fresno · n=121 · 2025
|
98% |
| 2 |
Fresno · n=553 · 2025
|
91% |
| 3 |
Reedley · n=66 · 2025
|
89% |
| 4 |
Fresno · n=521 · 2025
|
83% |
| 5 |
· n=590 · 2025
|
82% |
| 6 |
Clovis · n=619 · 2025
|
79% |
| 7 |
· n=57 · 2025
|
77% |
| 8 |
· n=68 · 2025
|
76% |
| 9 |
Kingsburg · n=267 · 2025
|
75% |
| 10 |
Sanger · n=533 · 2025
|
75% |
Top 10 — SBAC Math met/exceeded
% Met or Exceeded Standard · Grade 11 CAASPP · public/charter · tested ≥30
| 1 |
Fresno · n=120 · 2025
|
76% |
| 2 |
Fresno · n=523 · 2025
|
67% |
| 3 |
· n=57 · 2025
|
61% |
| 4 |
· n=581 · 2025
|
57% |
| 5 |
Fresno · n=519 · 2025
|
54% |
| 6 |
Clovis · n=604 · 2025
|
46% |
| 7 |
· n=59 · 2025
|
41% |
| 8 |
· n=68 · 2025
|
40% |
| 9 |
Kingsburg · n=268 · 2025
|
39% |
| 10 |
Reedley · n=410 · 2025
|
39% |
Top 10 — Private Net Assets
Wealthiest CA private high schools · IRS Form 990 · latest fiscal year
| 1 |
Reedley · Other religious · FY 2012
|
$6.1M |
| 2 |
Fresno · Other religious · FY 2023
|
$3.6M |
≥50 seniors · earliest→latest year
Which schools are moving a growing — or shrinking — share of their graduating class into the six most selective UCs. Reflects the current county/type filter.
▲ Biggest gains
| School | Then → Now | Δ |
|---|
|
Fresno · Private
|
33 '20
→ 59 '25
|
+25.6pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
25 '18
→ 46 '25
|
+21.1pp |
|
Fowler · Public
|
10 '18
→ 26 '25
|
+15.7pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3 '18
→ 14 '25
|
+11.5pp |
|
Reedley · Public
|
6 '18
→ 17 '25
|
+11.2pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
8 '18
→ 18 '25
|
+9.3pp |
|
Kingsburg · Public
|
6 '18
→ 13 '25
|
+7.6pp |
|
· Public
|
13 '18
→ 19 '25
|
+6.4pp |
|
Sanger · Public
|
9 '18
→ 15 '25
|
+5.7pp |
|
Coalinga · Public
|
2 '18
→ 7 '25
|
+5.4pp |
▼ Biggest declines
| School | Then → Now | Δ |
|---|
|
Fresno · Public
|
117 '18
→ 107 '25
|
-10.4pp |
|
Riverdale · Public
|
13 '18
→ 6 '25
|
-6.2pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
15 '18
→ 11 '25
|
-3.7pp |
|
Parlier · Public
|
5 '18
→ 3 '25
|
-2.1pp |
|
Selma · Public
|
14 '18
→ 12 '25
|
-1.5pp |
|
Orange Cove · Public
|
8 '18
→ 7 '25
|
-1.3pp |
|
Clovis · Public
|
10 '18
→ 9 '25
|
-1.2pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
8 '18
→ 8 '25
|
-0.8pp |
|
Tranquillity · Public
|
2 '19
→ 3 '22
|
0.2pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
5 '23
→ 6 '25
|
0.9pp |
grade-12 enrollment Δ vs. county · ≥80 students
The demographic tide is shrinking CA enrollment ~10% over 7 years statewide, so absolute decline alone is noise. The gap vs the county baseline is the actionable signal — schools losing share faster than their demographic floor are the ones to watch. Reflects the current county/type filter.
▲ Outperforming the county the most
| School | School · County | Gap |
|---|
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Demand hides churn
|
+40.5% vs +6.7%
|
+33.9pp |
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Best in class
|
+24.8% vs -3.8%
|
+28.6pp |
|
Clovis · Fresno · Public Best in class
|
+29.8% vs +6.7%
|
+23.1pp |
|
Caruthers · Fresno · Public Best in class
|
+28.6% vs +6.7%
|
+21.9pp |
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Demand hides churn
|
+24.4% vs +6.7%
|
+17.7pp |
|
Coalinga · Fresno · Public Watch — engagement
|
+18.0% vs +6.7%
|
+11.4pp |
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Watch — engagement
|
+12.2% vs +6.7%
|
+5.6pp |
|
Reedley · Fresno · Public Best in class
|
+11.2% vs +6.7%
|
+4.5pp |
|
Kerman · Fresno · Public Best in class
|
+9.6% vs +6.7%
|
+3.0pp |
|
Fowler · Fresno · Public Holding share
|
+8.2% vs +6.7%
|
+1.6pp |
▼ Underperforming the county the most
| School | School · County | Gap |
|---|
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Compounding decline
|
-53.4% vs +6.7%
|
-60.0pp |
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Compounding decline
|
-19.0% vs +6.7%
|
-25.7pp |
|
Orange Cove · Fresno · Public Sharp downturn
|
-16.8% vs +6.7%
|
-23.4pp |
|
Sanger · Fresno · Public Sharp downturn
|
-14.5% vs +6.7%
|
-21.2pp |
|
Riverdale · Fresno · Public Sharp downturn
|
-13.2% vs +6.7%
|
-19.9pp |
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Material decline
|
-10.1% vs +6.7%
|
-16.7pp |
|
· Fresno · Public Sharp downturn
|
-7.3% vs +6.7%
|
-14.0pp |
|
Clovis · Fresno · Public Sharp downturn
|
-5.1% vs +6.7%
|
-11.7pp |
|
Parlier · Fresno · Public Weak at the gate
|
-3.1% vs +6.7%
|
-9.8pp |
|
Fresno · Fresno · Public Weak at the gate
|
-3.1% vs +6.7%
|
-9.7pp |
25 schools eligible · 2025
Each dot is one school. The diagonal is the per-campus GPA expectation — points above it admit students at higher rates than their GPA mix predicts; points below admit at lower rates. Schools need ≥30 top-6 UC applications and data across ≥3 campuses to appear.
▲ Top 10 outperformers
| School |
GPA |
Actual |
Δ vs exp. |
|
Caruthers · Public
|
3.86 |
56.1% |
+28.5pp |
|
Kingsburg · Public
|
4.00 |
50.0% |
+23.0pp |
|
Kerman · Public
|
4.05 |
47.4% |
+21.1pp |
|
Sanger · Public
|
4.02 |
42.2% |
+19.2pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.85 |
40.5% |
+17.0pp |
|
Fowler · Public
|
3.92 |
35.2% |
+15.8pp |
|
Coalinga · Public
|
3.69 |
42.0% |
+14.4pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.94 |
35.3% |
+13.9pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.73 |
33.9% |
+12.5pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
4.05 |
35.2% |
+12.2pp |
▼ Top 10 underperformers
| School |
GPA |
Actual |
Δ vs exp. |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.85 |
23.6% |
-3.6pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.81 |
21.6% |
0.4pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.65 |
26.5% |
1.7pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.88 |
25.5% |
4.0pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
4.02 |
25.8% |
4.8pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.70 |
26.6% |
5.1pp |
|
· Public
|
4.02 |
29.6% |
6.4pp |
|
Clovis · Public
|
3.97 |
30.0% |
7.8pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.80 |
30.9% |
8.1pp |
|
Fresno · Public
|
3.80 |
29.0% |
8.2pp |
Sortable by any column. Click a column header to sort. Click any school row to open its profile.
30 schools · 2025 data
· 8 hidden (under 100 seniors)
| # |
School |
County |
Seniors
ⓘ
|
Total Enroll
ⓘ
|
UC Reach Score
ⓘ
|
App Reach Score
ⓘ
|
Admit Rate
ⓘ
|
Yield
ⓘ
|
Selective Reach
ⓘ
|
Elite Reach
ⓘ
|
Raw Apps
ⓘ
|
Raw Admits
ⓘ
|
| 1 |
Fresno · Public Weak at the gate
|
Fresno |
122 |
498 |
107
|
412 |
25.8% |
27.7% |
84.4 |
21.3 |
503 |
130 |
| 2 |
Fresno · Private
|
Fresno |
112 |
438 |
59
|
122 |
48.2% |
6.1% |
46.4 |
9.8 |
137 |
66 |
| 3 |
Fresno · Public Weak at the gate
|
Fresno |
613 |
2,360 |
46
|
131 |
35.2% |
18.1% |
35.7 |
6.7 |
801 |
282 |
| 4 |
Fowler · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
199 |
807 |
26
|
73 |
35.2% |
17.6% |
18.1 |
6.5 |
145 |
51 |
| 5 |
Fresno · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
518 |
2,339 |
22
|
62 |
35.3% |
23.7% |
15.6 |
5.2 |
323 |
114 |
| 6 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
649 |
2,551 |
19
|
65 |
29.6% |
23.0% |
15.6 |
3.1 |
425 |
126 |
| 7 |
Fresno · Public Watch — engagement
|
Fresno |
651 |
2,858 |
18
|
61 |
29.0% |
18.3% |
12.1 |
2.0 |
396 |
115 |
| 8 |
Reedley · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
393 |
1,804 |
17
|
55 |
30.7% |
15.2% |
13.2 |
2.0 |
215 |
66 |
| 9 |
Sanger · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
631 |
2,426 |
15
|
35 |
42.1% |
24.5% |
10.9 |
1.7 |
223 |
94 |
| 10 |
Fresno · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
514 |
2,184 |
15
|
68 |
21.6% |
20.0% |
12.7 |
2.3 |
348 |
75 |
| 11 |
Fresno · Public Demand hides churn
|
Fresno |
424 |
2,056 |
14
|
67 |
21.1% |
16.7% |
9.0 |
1.4 |
285 |
60 |
| 12 |
Mendota · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
266 |
1,065 |
14
|
43 |
31.6% |
8.3% |
9.8 |
1.5 |
114 |
36 |
| 13 |
Caruthers · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
171 |
682 |
13
|
39 |
34.3% |
17.4% |
6.4 |
— |
67 |
23 |
| 14 |
Kingsburg · Public Weak at the gate
|
Fresno |
247 |
1,073 |
13
|
32 |
41.2% |
9.1% |
9.7 |
1.6 |
80 |
33 |
| 15 |
Selma · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
391 |
1,721 |
13
|
42 |
29.5% |
24.5% |
8.4 |
2.0 |
166 |
49 |
| 16 |
Fresno · Public Material decline
|
Fresno |
557 |
2,485 |
12
|
46 |
25.5% |
24.2% |
8.8 |
1.4 |
259 |
66 |
| 17 |
Firebaugh · Public Weak at the gate
|
Fresno |
163 |
673 |
12
|
48 |
24.4% |
42.1% |
7.4 |
— |
78 |
19 |
| 18 |
Fresno · Public Compounding decline
|
Fresno |
342 |
1,867 |
11
|
33 |
33.9% |
7.9% |
8.5 |
2.0 |
112 |
38 |
| 19 |
Fresno · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
509 |
2,095 |
11
|
36 |
30.9% |
17.9% |
8.1 |
1.4 |
181 |
56 |
| 20 |
Clovis · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
723 |
3,113 |
11
|
36 |
30.0% |
25.3% |
7.9 |
0.8 |
263 |
79 |
| 21 |
Clovis · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
751 |
2,779 |
9
|
26 |
32.8% |
27.7% |
6.7 |
0.8 |
198 |
65 |
| 22 |
Kerman · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
350 |
1,493 |
8
|
21 |
37.5% |
11.1% |
5.1 |
0.9 |
72 |
27 |
| 23 |
Fresno · Public Compounding decline
|
Fresno |
398 |
1,741 |
8
|
24 |
30.9% |
13.3% |
5.3 |
0.8 |
97 |
30 |
| 24 |
Fresno · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
344 |
1,438 |
7
|
47 |
15.5% |
— |
4.9 |
— |
161 |
25 |
| 25 |
Orange Cove · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
155 |
635 |
7
|
18 |
39.3% |
— |
4.5 |
1.9 |
28 |
11 |
| 26 |
Coalinga · Public Watch — engagement
|
Fresno |
299 |
1,256 |
7
|
33 |
21.4% |
— |
4.3 |
— |
98 |
21 |
| 27 |
Riverdale · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
125 |
496 |
6
|
33 |
19.5% |
— |
3.2 |
— |
41 |
8 |
| 28 |
Fresno · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
131 |
625 |
6
|
22 |
27.6% |
— |
3.0 |
— |
29 |
8 |
| 29 |
Fresno · Public Demand hides churn
|
Fresno |
412 |
2,040 |
5
|
32 |
16.0% |
14.3% |
3.9 |
1.0 |
131 |
21 |
| 30 |
Parlier · Public Weak at the gate
|
Fresno |
190 |
901 |
3
|
28 |
11.1% |
— |
— |
— |
54 |
6 |
UC Reach = top-6 UC admits ÷ senior class size. Where UCOP has not published unique-student totals,
campus admits are summed — students admitted to more than one of the 6 campuses are counted at each, so values
above 100 indicate strong students winning multiple competitive UC offers.
Schools with fewer than 100 seniors are excluded from the leaderboard by default — a small cohort
with one strong year can otherwise dominate.
See methodology →