ExploreMapCompareBlogSign in
Andrew N. Christensen Middle · LivermorePublic

Andrew N. Christensen Middle: Most kids here clear the bar, year after year. The question is what happens after that.

Andrew N. Christensen posts 57% meeting the standard, and 30.6% going well past it. Most kids here keep up. Fewer get pushed further. Ask the school what it does for a child who already finds the work easy.

5757 Haggin Oaks Avenue, 94551 (opens in new tab)·Livermore Valley Joint Unified·Livermore·Grades 6-8·592 students·18% low-income·2024–25 CAASPP·(925) 606-4702·Website
2019–2025 trend · CDE CAASPP
This schoolCA avg
Scope4639
% Exceeded31%17%
% Met+57%40%
Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8)Weak · p34Average · p50
Absence13.7%18.1%
Suspension6.4%3.6%
Scope Score
46
🌱 Building Momentum · Developing
ranked #616 statewide · #2 of 5 in Livermore Valley Joint Unified

Andrew N. Christensen Middle scores 46 of 100 on SchoolScope's Scope Score — the 72nd percentile of 2,177 California middle schools (CDE CAASPP 2025).

Measures test performance, attendance, and climate — not arts, community, or your kid. How we score →

🌱 Building Momentum — This label means the data doesn't clearly sort the school one way or the other — ask what the school is proud of, and what it's working on.

CDE CAASPP 2025

Most rating sites would stop at “57% proficient” and call it done. Andrew N. Christensen deserves a closer read. It sits at the 72nd percentile of 2,177 California middle schools — but the ranking is the least interesting thing on this page.

The seven-year arc

Percentile among 2,177 middle schools statewide

Slipped from the 85th to the 72nd percentile since 2019.

CA Dashboard
ELAGreen(Increased)MathGreen(Increased)

Proficiency here is back to its pre-pandemic level — 57% meet the standard, about where the school stood in 2019.

ELA — % met or exceeded, by grade
Grade20192022202320242025
Grade 667%63%71%63%69%
Grade 772%70%62%67%60%
Grade 867%54%57%62%62%
Math — % met or exceeded, by grade
Grade20192022202320242025
Grade 650%41%47%43%52%
Grade 752%46%49%56%49%
Grade 848%38%48%43%47%

The story this school is actually telling

The school, grade by grade

ELA · CAASPP 2024–25

Different students, same year — each bar is one grade's proficiency mix.

37%
32%
31%
Grade 6 · 69% proficient
26%
33%
41%
Grade 7 · 59% proficient
32%
29%
39%
Grade 8 · 61% proficient

The honest read: the share exceeding falls 4.8pp across grades; the floor slips 7.7pp. The state average rises 0.1pp over the same span. A school visit and conversation with teachers will tell you more than this number.

The 6 things our score weighs

Exceeded standard
30.6%
State 17.2%
13.4pp above state avg
Met or exceeded
56.6%
State 40.0%
16.6pp above state avg
Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8)
Weak
State average
The school's returning cohort — mostly, not exactly, the same kids two years on — gained 33 scale-score points across the span. Almost every school gains points, so we rank the gain against every other California school in this level.
Chronic absenteeism
13.7%
State 18.1%
4.4pp below state avg
Suspension rate
6.4%
State 3.6%
2.8pp above state avg
EL proficiency (ELPAC)
10.3%
State 18.0%
7.6pp below state avg

California's own answer to the same question

Context — never part of the Scope Score

California runs its own growth model, following individual children in grades 4 through 8 rather than comparing school-wide averages the way we do — and its two subjects part company here. It puts this school around the 67th percentile of California middle schools in reading and the 43rd in math; ours, which blends the subjects, lands around the 34th. A gap that size between reading and math in one building is worth asking about directly — one year of data can't tell you whether it is the teaching, the cohort, or noise.

Both measures, ranked against every California school
Our growth measuresame cohort, G6→G8SchoolScope growth measure: 34th percentile among California middle schools.34th pctile
State model · readingmatched students, grades 4-8California growth model, reading: +6 scale-score points versus the state's expectation, 67th percentile of 7,519 reported schools.67th pctile · +6 pts
State model · mathmatched students, grades 4-8California growth model, math: −2 scale-score points versus the state's expectation, 43rd percentile of 7,518 reported schools.43rd pctile · −2 pts
this school| the tick is the middle of the California field

— pts vs expected is scale-score points above or below what California's model predicted for these same children from their own prior-year scores. It is not a percentage and not a percent of anything. A typical California middle school lands at −1 in reading, and the middle half of them fall between −8 and +6 — the spread is wide, so read the rank, not the sign. CDE blends two consecutive years into each published figure, so adjacent years share input data and no year-over-year trend can honestly be drawn from them. It covers grades 4-8 only, and it is not part of the Scope Score — we assessed it and left it out: it tracks school demographics roughly three times as strongly as our own growth measure does, and one published year is not enough to test how stable it is.

Worth a school visit

Ask how the school challenges kids who clear the standard early. The gap between meeting and exceeding is where pacing shows.

  • Ask what changes between grade 6 and grade 8 here, and who teaches the older kids.
  • Ask whether the tour can step into a working classroom — watch how the teacher handles a student who's stuck.
  • Ask to tour while school's in session, and notice how hallways and transitions feel — culture shows up between classes, not just in them.
  • Ask how the school communicates with families when a child starts to struggle.
  • Ask what a typical day looks like for a new student in the first few weeks.

How every group of students does here

At Andrew N. Christensen Middle in Livermore, 40.5% of low-income students met or exceeded the ELA standard in 2025, compared to 34.8% district-wide and 38.2% statewide. Andrew N. Christensen Middle outperforms its district average for low-income students by 5.7 percentage points in ELA. Other subgroups: Low-Income students (23.0% Math proficient); White students (63.4% ELA proficient). The largest proficiency gap is 63.5 percentage points for english learner students. Data source: California Department of Education, CAASPP 2024-25. 111 students tested.

All students at this school: 56% met or exceeded
All StudentsAll Students: this school 56%, district —, state 40%56%
MaleMale: this school 56%, district 55%, state 42%56% · −1 vs school
FemaleFemale: this school 57%, district 57%, state 44%57% · +1 vs school
WhiteWhite: this school 56%, district 63%, state 56%56% · −1 vs school
Hispanic/LatinoHispanic/Latino: this school 35%, district 34%, state 32%35% · −21 vs school
AsianAsian: this school 82%, district 80%, state 72%82% · +25 vs school
Socioeconomically DisadvantagedSocioeconomically Disadvantaged: this school 32%, district 28%, state 32%32% · −25 vs school
Students with DisabilitiesStudents with Disabilities: this school 15%, district 23%, state 15%15% · −41 vs school
Two or More RacesTwo or More Races: this school 65%, district 65%, state 56%65% · +8 vs school
English LearnersEnglish Learners: this school 0%, district 6%, state 11%0% · −56 vs school

5 of 15 student groups here are too small to report — a privacy protection, not a gap.

this school district, same group California, same group
Subgroup growth by grade

Change in proficiency from the lowest tested grade — which groups gain ground the longer they stay. Groups with fewer than 10 tested students per grade are not shown.

Low-income student ELA proficiency falls by 0.9pp from grade 6 to grade 8 at this school. District average: +7.7pp.

The state's growth model, by student group

California follows these children individually and predicts each one's score from their own prior year. Each row is read against the same group at a typical California middle school — not against zero, and not against this school's all-students figure, because the state's expectation already differs by group.

Reading
English Only393 studentsEnglish Only, reading: +5 scale-score points versus expectation, against 0 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 393 students.+5 pts · +5 vs typical
White215 studentsWhite, reading: +7 scale-score points versus expectation, against 0 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 215 students.+7 pts · +7 vs typical
Hispanic or Latino students139 studentsHispanic or Latino students, reading: −6 scale-score points versus expectation, against −2 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 139 students.−6 pts · −4 vs typical
Asian115 studentsAsian, reading: +14 scale-score points versus expectation, against +6 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 115 students.+14 pts · +8 vs typical
Low-income students103 studentsLow-income students, reading: −6 scale-score points versus expectation, against −3 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 103 students.−6 pts · −3 vs typical
Math
English Only393 studentsEnglish Only, math: −1 scale-score points versus expectation, against −3 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 393 students.−1 pts · +2 vs typical
White215 studentsWhite, math: −2 scale-score points versus expectation, against +1 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 215 students.−2 pts · −3 vs typical
Hispanic or Latino students139 studentsHispanic or Latino students, math: −16 scale-score points versus expectation, against −6 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 139 students.−16 pts · −10 vs typical
Asian115 studentsAsian, math: +12 scale-score points versus expectation, against +17 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 115 students.+12 pts · −5 vs typical
Low-income students103 studentsLow-income students, math: −15 scale-score points versus expectation, against −5 for the same group at a typical California middle school, 103 students.−15 pts · −10 vs typical
this school typical California middle school, same group| the centre tick is 0 = as predicted

— 4 more groups are reported here with between 11 and 29 students. We hold those back on purpose: at that size the figure swings about 17 points on its own, and a quarter of such groups land past the state's top or bottom cut point by chance alone. They are listed with their student counts in the data appendix. — A group not listed at all had fewer than 11 students with a growth score, so California published nothing for it here. That is a privacy protection, not a judgment about those students. — Context only. None of this enters the Scope Score.

Showing up, and staying in class

Chronic absenteeismChronic absenteeism: this school 13.7%, district 14.4%, state 18.1%13.7% · −4.4pp vs state
Suspension rateSuspension rate: this school 6.4%, district —, state 3.6%6.4% · +2.8pp vs state

Grades 7–8 students miss school at roughly one and a half times the rate of Grades 4–6 students (15.5% vs 9.4%). Chronic absence here concentrates in the upper grades.

Chronic absenteeism by grade band
Grades 4–69.4%
Grades 7–815.5%

Where the path goes

The path below follows attendance boundaries — scores shown for each next step.

K-12 Feeder Path
▼
Middle
Andrew N. Christensen Middle
46/100
This school

Feeder patterns derived from NCES attendance boundary data. Boundaries are approximate and may have changed — verify with your school district for current assignments.

Granada HighScope 65direct feeder

The road from this school ends at Granada High, which sent 69 graduates to UC campuses last fall and teaches 22 AP subjects. Those numbers describe past cohorts — a child starting here today would reach Granada High around 2031, and 6 years is a long time for a school to hold still, and by the state's 2023 count 81% of Granada High's graduates enrolled in college somewhere, UC or not.

69 UC ENROLLEES (FALL 2025) · 22 AP SUBJECTS TAUGHT → full record on Granada High's page
Source: UC & College Board

The people teaching here

Context — never part of the Scope Score
Student : teacherStudent to teacher ratio: this school 21:1, district 22:121:1
PrincipalBrian Scharmann
Teaching staff31 teachers
Avg. experience12.5 years
Fully credentialed81%
First-year teachers10%
Intern / emergency permit5.1%
Salary Schedule
Teacher salary schedule$58,717 – $131,624
Principal salary$178,222 – $198,882
Superintendent salary$353,000

Pay is set by the district, not the school.

What gets spent here

Context — never part of the Scope Score
Per-pupil spendingPer-pupil spending: $16,838, CA average $14,491$16,838 · spent at this school
Federal share$6 per student

$6 per student arrives as federal Title funding — a measure of concentrated need, not school quality.

District current expense · FY 2024–25$16,839 per student

The district's current expense of education per student, from CDE's annual SACS filing — the freshest district spending figure the state publishes.

Where the district's dollars go · FY 2024–25 · CDE SACS
Instruction62%
Instruction support14%
Student services10%
Administration5%
Buildings & maintenance9%
Other1%

District-level, from the district's own SACS general-ledger filing — school-by-school breakdowns aren't published by the state.

district detail, 2016–2020 — the newest published
2020$12,689 per pupil
2019$11,923 per pupil
2018$12,373 per pupil
2017$11,323 per pupil
2016$10,183 per pupil

Source: NCES F-33 · Full district breakdown →

The neighborhood it serves

Context — never part of the Scope Score
White39.0%
District 38.5% · CA 19.9%
Hispanic26.7%
District 32.4% · CA 56.1%
Asian21.1%
District 15.7% · CA 10.2%
Other11.7%
District 11.9% · CA 9.0%
Black1.5%
District 1.5% · CA 4.8%
Low IncomeFree/reduced lunch eligible 18.1% (46pp below CA avg)
Neighborhood — American Community Survey
Median income$145K · CA $85K
Median home value$979K · CA $659K
Bachelor's degree+48% · CA 35%
ZIP population37,885
Median age40 years

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year estimates (2024) · ZIP-level

Worth Knowing

On the state's science test (CAST), 49% met or exceeded the standard — science is tested in grades 5 and 8 and once in high school, and it never enters the Scope Score.

Frequently asked questions

Is Andrew N. Christensen Middle a good middle school?

Andrew N. Christensen Middle has a Scope Score of 46 out of 100, placing it in the 72nd percentile of California middle schools and ranked #616 statewide. 30.6% of students exceeded the state standard on the 2025 CAASPP assessment, which is 13.4 percentage points above the California average of 17.2%. The Scope Score weights 6 dimensions for middle schools: exceeded standard (42%), met or exceeded (proficient) (23%), grade 6-to-8 growth (20%), chronic absenteeism (5%), suspension rate (5%), and ELPAC English Learner proficiency (5%). Data source: California Department of Education CAASPP 2025, analyzed by SchoolScope.

What are Andrew N. Christensen Middle's CAASPP test scores?

On the 2025 CAASPP Smarter Balanced Assessment, 56.6% of students at Andrew N. Christensen Middle met or exceeded the state standard in ELA and Math combined, and 30.6% exceeded it. The gap between those numbers matters: 25.9% of students are at the proficiency floor, while 30.6% pushed past it. Most rating sites report only the combined "proficient" number. SchoolScope surfaces the exceeded-vs-met split because it reveals whether a school's curriculum challenges students beyond minimum proficiency or paces toward it. 1,154 student-subject combinations were assessed.

How does Andrew N. Christensen Middle rank in California?

Andrew N. Christensen Middle ranks #616 among California middle schools by Scope Score, placing it in the 72nd percentile. This ranking is based on a weighted composite of 2025 CAASPP test performance (exceeded and met rates), same-cohort growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8), chronic absenteeism, and suspension rate. Unlike single-number ratings, the Scope Score shows what drives the ranking so parents can decide what matters most to their family. See full methodology.

Is Andrew N. Christensen Middle getting better or worse?

SchoolScope follows the same cohort of students across grades rather than comparing two different grades in the same year. At Andrew N. Christensen Middle that cohort is 2023 G6 → 2025 G8, measured in SBAC scale-score points. Its gain ranks weak among California middle schools — roughly the 34th percentile, behind the typical school at this level. Read the ranking, not the raw point gain: scale scores rise with age, so nearly every school posts a positive number and only the relative position tells you anything. Growth is weighted at 20% in the middle Scope Score because it is the least demographically confounded signal available — it tracks change over time rather than the level students arrived at. See full methodology.

What is the attendance and school culture like at Andrew N. Christensen Middle?

13.7% of students at Andrew N. Christensen Middle are chronically absent (missing 10% or more of school days), which is better than the California average of 18.1%. The suspension rate is 6.4%. SchoolScope includes these culture metrics in the Scope Score because they reflect day-to-day school experience in ways test scores alone cannot.

How does Andrew N. Christensen Middle compare to other schools in Livermore?

Andrew N. Christensen Middle scores 46/100 (72nd percentile) among California middle schools. To compare with nearby schools, SchoolScope shows the same metrics side by side: exceeded rate, proficiency, growth trajectory, and school culture indicators. The school serves 592 students. Use the schools in Livermore page or the map view to compare all middle schools nearby.

How does Andrew N. Christensen Middle serve low-income and underrepresented students?

At Andrew N. Christensen Middle in Livermore, 40.5% of low-income students met or exceeded the ELA standard in 2025, compared to 34.8% district-wide and 38.2% statewide. Andrew N. Christensen Middle outperforms its district average for low-income students by 5.7 percentage points in ELA. Other subgroups: Low-Income students (23.0% Math proficient); White students (63.4% ELA proficient). The largest proficiency gap is 63.5 percentage points for english learner students. Data source: California Department of Education, CAASPP 2024-25. 111 students tested. SchoolScope shows disaggregated test scores by demographic subgroup so you can see how a school performs for your child's specific group — not just the school-wide average. Subgroup data is context, not part of the Scope Score: we don't penalize schools for who they serve. See our equity approach.

What high school does Andrew N. Christensen Middle feed into?

By attendance boundary, Andrew N. Christensen Middle is zoned to Granada High and Livermore High. Scope Scores: Granada High 65, Livermore High 58 out of 100. Boundaries come from the U.S. Department of Education's School Attendance Boundary Survey, a 2015-16 collection and the most recent national one — they are approximate and may since have changed. A boundary is also not a placement guarantee: magnet, charter, open-enrollment and inter-district transfer options mean students from one school often continue to several different ones. Confirm your address with the district before making an enrollment or housing decision. Data source: NCES School Attendance Boundary Survey, analyzed by SchoolScope.

Your other options

All schools in Livermore →

Private alternatives nearby

Private schools within ~10 miles. These schools do not participate in state testing and cannot be scored or ranked.

For the data nerds

Every number on this page

Score factors, grade-level breakdowns, subgroup proficiency, and nearest schools.

01Score factorsWeighted composite · 2024–25
Exceeded standard · 42%
30.6%
↑ vs CA 17.2% · 65th pctile
Met or exceeded · 23%
56.6%
↑ vs CA 40.0% · 64th pctile
Growth (2023 G6 → 2025 G8) · 20%
Weak
↓ vs CA average · 34th pctile
Chronic absenteeism · 5%
13.7%
↑ vs CA 18.1% · 57th pctile
▲ 1.6pp higher vs 2024
Suspension rate · 5%
6.4%
↓ vs CA 3.6% · 39th pctile
▲ 0.6pp higher vs 2024
EL proficiency (ELPAC) · 5%
10.3%
↓ vs CA 18.0% · 35th pctile
02By grade & subgroupCAASPP 2024–25 · % of tested students
ELATestedEXCMETNEARNOTMET++/CA
Grade 618037%32%15%16%69%+23
Grade 720526%33%21%20%60%+12
Grade 819132%29%25%14%62%+16
MathTestedEXCMETNEARNOTMET++/CA
Grade 618133%20%24%24%52%+18
Grade 720525%24%24%27%49%+15
Grade 819230%17%25%28%47%+15

We show the grade rows CDE publishes for this school. A missing grade or dash can mean the school does not serve that grade, no valid result was published, or the tested group was too small to report. It does not mean zero.

Science (CAST)TestedEXCMETNEARNOT
Schoolwide19325%24%42%9%

CAST is tested in grades 5 and 8, then once in grade 10, 11, or 12. This row is the school's all-student aggregate. Not part of the Scope Score.

Subgroup · ELATestedMET+vs districtvs CA
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged11140.5%+6+2
White22463.4%−6+2
Hispanic/Latino15441.6%+1+3
03Nearest middle schoolssorted by Scope Score · Grade gap = grade 3 vs grade 5, this year, different students; Cohort growth = one school's returning cohort tracked across grades (mostly, not exactly, the same kids), in scale-score points — that's the measurement the Scope Score weights
SchoolDistScopeEXCMET+Grade gapCohort growthSusp
Andrew N. Christensen Middle ←—4630.6%56.6%−6.4pp+33 pts6.4%
California average—3917.2%40.0%+1.5pp—3.6%
04More measurescontext · not all part of the Scope Score
YearScopePctileRankExcMet+AbsentSuspGrade gap
20195785#30730.5%59.2%0.2%4.8%-0.9pp
20225181#42224.6%52.1%20.2%4.5%-6.0pp
20235384#35926.9%55.7%14.3%7.4%-6.7pp
20245079#45727.6%55.6%12.1%5.9%-0.4pp
20254672#61630.6%56.6%13.7%6.4%-6.4pp
Grade gap = this year's grade 3 vs grade 5 result, two different sets of students, not a trend for any one child — it is not the measurement the Scope Score's growth dimension uses. See §01 above and /methodology#verdicts for the school's actual scored (cohort) growth.
NO STATEWIDE TESTING 2020–21 (COVID) · SCORE AND PERCENTILE ARE RELATIVE TO EACH YEAR'S FIELD
05Climate by student groupchronic absenteeism · 2019 vs 2025 — the two years CDE publishes at subgroup level
Group20192025Δ
Female0.0%13.2%+13.2pp
Male0.0%13.9%+13.9pp
Asian0.0%6.8%+6.8pp
Black/African American0.0%——
White0.0%5.6%+5.6pp
Hispanic/Latino0.0%21.3%+21.3pp
Two or More Races0.0%6.3%+6.3pp
Students with Disabilities0.0%24.4%+24.4pp
English Learners0.0%37.8%+37.8pp
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged0.0%24.4%+24.4pp
All Students0.0%13.6%+13.6pp
11California growth model, by student group2025 · scale-score points vs the state's prediction · shown, never scored
GroupReadingnCDE bandMathnCDE band
All Students+6540Accelerated−2540Average
English Only+5393not categorised−1393not categorised
White+7215Accelerated−2215Average
Hispanic or Latino−6139Moderate−16139Moderate
Asian+14115Accelerated+12115Accelerated
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged−6103Moderate−15103Moderate
Students with Disabilities−286Average−1786Moderate
English Learner049Average−1849Moderate
Two or More Races+1245Accelerated+1245Accelerated
Recently Reclassified Fluent-English Proficient Only+2329not categorised−329not categorised
English Learners Only−2920not categorised−3220not categorised
Long-Term English Learner (grades 6-8 only)−3918Minimal−2818Minimal
Filipino+1415Accelerated−415Average

Whole scale-score points above or below what CDE's model predicted for these same children from their own prior-year scores — not a percentage, not a percentile. Statewide a typical school lands near +1 with a spread of about 13 points either side, so read a figure against its group's own typical value, not against zero. Muted rows have fewer than 30 students with a growth score — published by CDE, held back from the narrative sections above because at that size the figure swings about 17 points on its own. “Not categorised” is CDE assigning no band — English Only, Recently Reclassified, and English Learners Only receive a value and no band, for every school in the state. It is not a missing number. Long-Term English Learner counts cover grades 6-8 only (CDE), so that row is not comparable to the All Students row. Most figures blend two consecutive years, so adjacent published years share input data and no trend line can honestly be drawn across them. A group absent from this table had fewer than 11 students with a growth score and was never published. Grades 4-8 only. None of this enters the Scope Score — it is more strongly correlated with school demographics than our own growth measure, and one published year is not enough to test its reliability.

Embed this scorecard
<iframe
  src="https://schoolscope.co/embed/school/andrew-n-christensen-middle-5773"
  width="100%" height="210" loading="lazy"
  style="border:0;border-radius:12px"
  title="Andrew N. Christensen Middle — SchoolScope scorecard">
</iframe>

Free to embed with the credit link. Data updates automatically.

EXC = exceeded standard · MET+ = met or exceeded ("proficient") · Source: CA Dept. of Education · CAASPP 2024–25 · n=2,177 middle schools · Vintages: climate subgroups 2019+2025 · district finance per its label · ACS 2022 · Data updated 2026-07-03methodology · data updates · CSV · report issue

SchoolScope scores and verdicts are our interpretation of public California Department of Education data — independent analysis, not an official rating. How we analyze · Request a correction

← Browse all schools