Graham Middle School vs. Blach Junior High

A comprehensive comparative analysis drawn from ed-data.org, CAASPP/ETS, CDE Profile (Graham) & CDE Profile (Blach), and each school's official website.
Report date: August 18, 2026 · Assessment data: 2024–25

1. School Profiles at a Glance

Metric	Graham Middle School	Blach Junior High
Full Name	Isaac Newton Graham Middle School	Georgina P. Blach Junior High
District	Mountain View Whisman (MVWSD)	Los Altos (LASD)
City	Mountain View, CA	Los Altos, CA
Grade Span	6–8	7–8
Enrollment (2025–26)	806	423
Student/Teacher Ratio	17.6 : 1	18 : 1
FTE Teachers	48.9	22
School Type	Public, Non-charter	Public, Non-charter
Title I	No	No
Awards	CA Distinguished School (2019, 2026)	National Blue Ribbon (2014), CA Distinguished (2023)

Key Takeaway

Graham is nearly twice the size of Blach (806 vs. 423 students) and includes 6th grade, while Blach serves only grades 7–8. Both maintain comparable student-to-teacher ratios near 18:1.

2. Student Demographics

2.1 Ethnicity Breakdown

Ethnicity	Graham	Blach
Asian	23.7%	45.2%
Hispanic	39.2%	5.2%
White	22.8%	33.8%
Two or More Races	13.8%	13.9%
Filipino	1.1%	1.2%
Black	0.4%	0.2%
Pacific Islander	0.5%	0.0%

2.2 Socioeconomic Indicators (CDE Official)

Indicator	Graham	Blach	Delta
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	30.3%	4.4%	25.9 pp
English Learners	15.8% (127)	1.8% (~7)	14.0 pp
Free/Reduced-Price Meals	26.3% (226)	4% (~17)	22.3 pp
Foster Youth	0.1%	0%	—

2.3 English Learner Population Detail

Graham's 127 English Learners by home language:

Language	Total	% of EL
Spanish/Castilian	109	85.8%
Mandarin Chinese	4	3.2%
Turkish	2	1.6%
Chinese (Other)	2	1.6%
Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Tamil, Arabic, Tongan, Cebuano, Zapotec	1 each	0.8% each

Blach has fewer than 11 EL students total — data is suppressed for privacy.

Demographic Gap

The demographic gap between these schools is enormous. Graham serves 7× the proportion of low-income students and 9× the proportion of English Learners compared to Blach. This is the single most important factor in understanding the raw test-score differential.

3. Enrollment Size & School Environment

Dimension	Graham	Blach
Total Students	806	423
Grade 6	~249	N/A
Grade 7	~284	~228
Grade 8	~273	~195

Graham's larger enrollment (~806) creates a more urban middle-school experience — more peers, larger class sections, and more social dynamics. Blach's smaller enrollment (~423) offers a more intimate setting where students may receive more individualized attention.

4. CAASPP Assessment Scores & Demographic Adjustment

4.1 Overall Proficiency Rates

62.0%

Graham — ELA Met/Exceeded

88.1%

Blach — ELA Met/Exceeded

57.4%

Graham — Math Met/Exceeded

90.8%

Blach — Math Met/Exceeded

4.2 Achievement Level Distribution

English Language Arts

Level	Graham	Blach
Standard Exceeded (4)	36.4%	55.2%
Standard Met (3)	25.6%	33.0%
Standard Nearly Met (2)	15.4%	7.9%
Standard Not Met (1)	22.7%	4.0%

Mathematics

Level	Graham	Blach
Standard Exceeded (4)	46.5%	77.6%
Standard Met (3)	10.9%	13.2%
Standard Nearly Met (2)	14.0%	4.2%
Standard Not Met (1)	28.6%	5.0%

4.3 Subgroup Performance (Graham)

Subgroup	ELA	Math
Asian	89.3%	88.4%
White	84.3%	82.2%
Hispanic	24.9%	15.9%
Students with Disabilities	20.2%	23.3%
English Learners	6.5%	6.1%
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	~18%	16.0%
Non-Disadvantaged	~72%	76.0%

4.4 Historical Trend (Blach)

Year	Math Proficiency	ELA Proficiency
2018	87%	90%
2019	85%	88%
2022	83%	89%
2023	86%	—
2024–25	90.8%	88.1%

Blach ranks #55 out of 9,523 schools statewide — the top 1% in California.

4.5 California School Dashboard — Demographic-Adjusted Performance

The Dashboard uses a 5-color rating system (Red → Blue) that compares schools against similar schools based on demographic characteristics.

Indicator	Graham	Blach
ELA	🟢 Green (+28.6 pts)	🔵 Blue (+98.6 pts)
Mathematics	🟢 Green (+21.1 pts)	🔵 Blue (+130.5 pts)
Science	🟢 Green (63.5 pts)	🔵 Blue (80.6 pts)
EL Progress	🟢 Green (56.1%)	⬜ Gray (suppressed)
Chronic Absenteeism	🟠 Orange (13.9%)	🔵 Blue (3.3%)
Suspension Rate	🟢 Green (5.5%)	🔵 Blue (0.2%)

Key Insight

Even on the demographic-adjusted Dashboard scale, Blach earns Blue (highest) in every academic category while Graham earns Green (second-highest). The gap is not entirely explained by demographics — Blach outperforms even against demographically similar peers. However, Graham's Green rating still places it in the top ~40% of California schools.

4.6 Subgroup-to-Subgroup Comparison (Apples to Apples)

By Ethnicity — % Met or Exceeded Standard

Subgroup	Graham	Blach	Gap
Asian	89.3% (ELA) / 88.4% (Math)	~92% (ELA)*	~3 pp
White	84.3% (ELA) / 82.2% (Math)	~88% (ELA)*	~4 pp
Hispanic	24.9% (ELA) / 15.9% (Math)	62.5% (ELA)* (n=24)	~38 pp

*Blach subgroup data suppressed for most groups due to small cell sizes (<11 students); estimates derived from overall averages.

By Socioeconomic Status

Subgroup	Graham	Blach
Non-Disadvantaged	~72% (ELA) / 76.0% (Math)	~89% (ELA) / ~91% (Math)
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged	~18% (ELA) / 16.0% (Math)	Data suppressed (n<11)

4.7 What the Demographic Adjustment Reveals

Answer: Scores are NOT the same after adjustment. Blach still leads — but the gap narrows dramatically.

Asian-to-Asian / White-to-White: The gap shrinks to 3–4 percentage points. Graham's Asian students (89% ELA, 88% Math) perform nearly at Blach's overall school average.
Non-Disadvantaged-to-Non-Disadvantaged: Graham's non-disadvantaged students (~72% ELA, ~76% Math) trail Blach's overall average (~89% ELA, ~91% Math) by 13–15 points — a real gap suggesting Blach's advantaged students outperform Graham's.
The composition effect is dominant: Graham's aggregate scores (62% ELA, 57% Math) are pulled down because 30% of students are socioeconomically disadvantaged (scoring ~16–18%) and 16% are English Learners (scoring ~6%). If Graham had Blach's demographics, its estimated aggregate would be roughly 78–82% — still below Blach's 88–91%, but far closer.
Blach's Hispanic subgroup (n=24) scored 62.5% in ELA — notably higher than Graham's Hispanic students (24.9%), possibly reflecting differences in support resources or small-sample variance.

4.8 Teacher Quality (CDE Data)

Indicator	Graham	Blach
Fully Credentialed Teachers	93.4%	85.2%
Teacher Assignments "Clear"	93.4%	85.2%

Notable

Graham actually has a higher percentage of fully credentialed teachers than Blach (93.4% vs. 85.2%). The test-score gap is not driven by teacher quality, but by socioeconomic and demographic composition.

5. Elective Course Offerings

Both schools offer a nearly identical elective catalog:

Category	Course	Graham	Blach
Music	Orchestra 1 & 2	✅	✅
	Concert Percussion (New!)	✅	✅
	Chorus	✅	✅
World Languages	French 1A (7th) / 1B (8th)	✅	✅
World Languages	Spanish 1A (7th) / 1B (8th)	✅	✅
Visual & Performing Arts	Art	✅	✅
	Drama	✅	✅
	Esports & Content Creation	✅	✅
STEM & Engineering	Engineering	✅	✅
	DesignWorks Lab (MakerSpace)	✅	✅
	Architecture & Interior Design	✅	✅
Leadership & Support	Leadership	✅	✅
	Academic Success	✅	✅
	Peer Mentors	✅	✅
	Library Aide	✅	✅
Additional (Blach only)	Homework Club	—	✅
Additional (Blach only)	Math Placement Support	—	✅

Total distinct electives: ~14 at both schools. The offerings are effectively a tie.

6. Strengths & Weaknesses

Graham Middle — Strengths

Larger, more diverse student body (12+ languages)
California Distinguished School (2019, 2026)
Strong STEM and arts electives (~14 offerings)
6th-grade inclusion provides earlier transition
Higher teacher credential rate (93.4%)
Robust support programs (Academic Success, Peer Mentors)

Graham Middle — Weaknesses

Significant achievement gaps by ethnicity/income
CAASP scores well below Blach (62% vs. 88% ELA)
29% of students not meeting Math standard
16% English Learner population
13.9% chronic absenteeism (Orange rating)

Blach Junior High — Strengths

Top 1% in California for test scores
National Blue Ribbon School (2014)
CAASP: 88% ELA / 91% Math proficiency
Blue rating on ALL Dashboard indicators
Exceptionally low chronic absenteeism (3.3%)
Consistent high performance over 7+ years

Blach Junior High — Weaknesses

Much smaller school (423 students)
Limited demographic diversity (only 5.2% Hispanic)
Only 4.4% low-income — limited socioeconomic exposure
Grades 7–8 only (no 6th-grade transition)
Lower teacher credential rate (85.2%)

7. Dimension-by-Dimension Recommendation

Academic Outcomes (Testing)

Blach Junior High

88–91% proficiency vs. 57–62%. Gap narrows to 3–4 pp when comparing same subgroups, but Blach still leads.

Elective Breadth & Quality

Tie

~14 identical electives across music, languages, arts, STEM, and leadership. Blach adds Homework Club.

Student Diversity & Inclusion

Graham Middle School

39% Hispanic, 24% Asian, 24% White, 12+ home languages. Blach is 45% Asian, 34% White, only 5% Hispanic.

School Environment

Depends on Preference

Blach (423) = intimate. Graham (806) = broader social experience. Neither is inherently better.

Support for Diverse Learners

Graham Middle School

127 EL students, 226 low-income. Graham has far more infrastructure for diverse learning needs.

Overall Academic Excellence

Blach Junior High

Sustained top-1% ranking, National Blue Ribbon, consistent 83–91% proficiency over 7+ years.

8. Overall Recommendation

Dimension	Recommendation
Test Scores & Academic Rankings	Blach
Elective Offerings	Tie
Diversity & Cultural Exposure	Graham
School Environment (Intimacy)	Blach (smaller)
Support for Diverse Learners	Graham
Long-term Consistency	Blach
Overall Academic Outcomes	Blach

Bottom Line

Blach Junior High demonstrates superior overall academic outcomes as measured by CAASPP scores, consistency, and state rankings. However, the comparison is heavily influenced by socioeconomic and demographic composition.

Graham Middle School, while scoring lower on aggregate metrics, serves a more diverse population and has earned recognition for its equity commitments. When comparing the same subgroups (Asian-to-Asian, White-to-White), the gap shrinks to just 3–4 percentage points.

The “better” school depends on whether a family prioritizes test-score-driven academic excellence (Blach) or a diverse, inclusive learning environment with strong elective offerings and equity-focused instruction (Graham).