Independent Texas school research. TEA data, clearly explained. Not affiliated with the state agencyTEA.

txschools.netSchool data with context

Traditional public school campus

Booker T Washington Elem

Bastrop County · Region 13: Austin · 659 students

Official school websiteSchool information and family resources

Current score
67/1002025-26
Change
+8 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−11.1 ptsvs 78.1 average · 2,083 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
1,780 of 2,083tied with 42 others
D67

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 52 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 78.1 average for 2,083 rated schools serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Selected positive signals, not a summary of performance. The same rules choose them on every page: only the latest one-year gain, results meaningfully better than the currently selected comparison with broad reporting, and distinctive top-three placements. Demographics, staffing and spending cannot become academic “wins.” The overall rating and the full results below remain the complete picture for this school.

Read the full rating context and placement

Booker T Washington Elem is rated D by TEA, scoring 67 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 78.1 average for 2,083 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is up 8 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 1,780th of 2,083 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 42 others).

3 consecutive years rated unacceptable. At three or more years, Texas law provides for state intervention.

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

Jump to a section
  1. Overview
  2. Official improvement and transfer notices
  3. 5 years of ratings
  4. Where the score comes from
  5. Student outcomes
  6. Who this school serves
  7. Student counts behind the percentages
  8. Enrollment over time
  9. Discipline and removal from class
  10. Spending per student
  11. Teachers and actual class size
  12. Where this school ranks best
  13. Where this comes from

Official improvement and transfer notices

Official state and federal designations can carry support, reporting requirements or a family transfer option that a single A–F rating does not explain.

2026 federal improvement status

Targeted Support and Improvement

Official support label: TSI

Identification reason: Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, English Learners, Continuously Enrolled

TEA track year 0 · Title I campus

Open the official TEA list and methodology

2026-27 school year

Public Education Grant transfer eligibility

Students assigned to this campus may request a transfer under the state's PEG program.

A request is not guaranteed. A receiving district may apply its enrollment rules, and transportation is not automatically provided.

Read the official PEG rules and list

Schools identified for improvement

This school
Listed
Selected comparison
32.9%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,083 rated schools reporting

Schools on the PEG list

This school
Listed
Selected comparison
5.9%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,083 rated schools reporting

Selected comparison percentages are the share of reporting schools in that group found on each dated list. They are neutral prevalence context; changing the comparison never changes this school's official status.

These are dated TEA statuses, fetched 24 August 2026; they are not added to or subtracted from this site's rating.

5 years of ratings

Follow the solid line to see how this school has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.

Compare against
9080706050 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageBooker T Washington Elem 5964485867 2021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26

2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated Not Rated with 52 that year.

Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.

View the yearly scores and comparisons
Rating history with comparisons
YearRatingScoreSelected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rateStateTexas average
2025-26D6778.1 2,083 reporting81.3 7,646 reporting
2024-25F5877.8 2,072 reporting81.2 7,554 reporting
2023-24F4875.4 2,060 reporting78.9 7,466 reporting
2022-23D6475.8 2,037 reporting79.1 7,377 reporting
2021-22F5981.7 2,020 reporting83.7 7,283 reporting

Where the score comes from

Texas builds the overall rating from the better of Student Achievement and School Progress, weighted 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. School Progress is itself the better of Academic Growth and Relative Performance. The 60, 70, 80 and 90 rules mark the letter-grade thresholds.

  • Student Achievement56 F−17.5 vs similar economic context · 1,928 reporting
  • School Progress63 D−16.4 vs similar economic context · 1,923 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps75 C−0.3 vs similar economic context · 1,909 reporting
  • Academic Growth63 D−9.5 vs similar economic context · 1,874 reporting
  • Relative Performance56 F−21.7 vs similar economic context · 1,923 reporting
  • Booker T Washington Elem
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,083 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement56F4
School Progress63D7
Closing the Gaps75C5
Academic Growth63D7
Relative Performance56F4

Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 5 points below B in that domain — the nearest of the measures that count toward the overall rating.

TEA does not add the domains up. The overall score is the better of Student Achievement and School Progress at 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. For this school that better measure is School Progress (63), so Student Achievement (56) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 63.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level55%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,928 reporting
  • Meets grade level27%−16 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,928 reporting
  • Masters grade level10%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,928 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level60%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,926 reporting
  • Meets grade level32%−16 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,926 reporting
  • Masters grade level14%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,926 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level57%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,918 reporting
  • Meets grade level27%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,918 reporting
  • Masters grade level10%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,918 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level35%−33 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,780 reporting
  • Meets grade level12%−27 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,780 reporting
  • Masters grade level3%−14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,780 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,083 in cohort)

Percentage of tests at or above each level. Masters is a subset of Meets, which is a subset of Approaches. The selected-comparison tick on each bar marks the average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate — a comparison TEA does not publish.

Counts in the comparison controls describe full cohort membership, not the denominator of every average. Each average uses only schools for which TEA reported that measure; metric-specific reporting counts are shown on the STAAR, graduation and CCMR rows and may vary.

Who this school serves

Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.

Students
659
Economically disadvantaged
76.9%−0.3 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
65.0%+39.0 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
11.9%−6.9 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
93.7%+0.1 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
22.8%+3.3 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Booker T Washington Elem

African American: 3.3%Hispanic: 90.3%White: 4.6%Asian: 0.2%Pacific Islander: 0.2%Two or More Races: 1.5%
  • African American 3.3%
  • Hispanic 90.3%
  • White 4.6%
  • Asian 0.2%
  • Pacific Islander 0.2%
  • Two or More Races 1.5%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,083 reporting for every category shown · 2,083 in full cohort

African American: 13.6%Hispanic: 64.3%White: 16.9%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 1.8%Pacific Islander: 0.2%Two or More Races: 2.9%
  • African American 13.6%
  • Hispanic 64.3%
  • White 16.9%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 1.8%
  • Pacific Islander 0.2%
  • Two or More Races 2.9%

Student counts behind the percentages

Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.

Students in this TEA accountability summary
657
Economically disadvantaged students
505
Emergent bilingual students
427
Special education students
78

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students
81
Students in TEA mobility denominator
582
TEA-published mobility rate
13.9%

The mobility count and rate use TEA’s separate 2024–25 campus denominator shown above, not current enrollment. This site does not recalculate a missing rate.

The first figure is TEA’s student count for this accountability summary. It is a separate publication from the fall PEIMS enrollment shown above and can differ; this site does not substitute one for the other. Counts come from TEA’s 2025-26 accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026. A reported zero is shown as 0. Small-number and complementary masks, unavailable values, and blank not-reported fields stay separate and are never estimated. TEA masking definitions.

Enrollment over time

TEA-reported student enrollment for each available school year. Enrollment growth or decline is not a measure of school quality.

TEA reported 659 students in 2025–26, an increase of 21 (3.3%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
659

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
+21

Increase · +3.3%

Change since 2021–22
−11

Decrease · −1.6%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This school
659
Selected comparison
641.4

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,056 rated schools reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Booker T Washington Elem
School yearStudents enrolledBooker T Washington ElemChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 670 First available year 659.8
2022–23 750 Increase of 80 (11.9%) 662.8
2023–24 763 Increase of 13 (1.7%) 659.4
2024–25 638 Decrease of 125 (16.4%) 658
2025–26 659 Increase of 21 (3.3%) 641.4

The selected comparison column is the average enrollment among reporting schools in that group. It changes with the comparison control; this school's own counts do not.

Source: TEA PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. TEA reports these counts from its fall student snapshot; changes compare adjacent reported school years.

These counts show how enrollment changed, not why. Attendance-zone changes, school openings or closures, grade reconfigurations, transfers and population shifts can affect the total.

Discipline and removal from class

TEA’s annual student and action counts, kept separate and divided only by the matching full-year enrollment. These figures describe removals from instruction, not a simple safe-or-unsafe score.

Students in TEA’s all-discipline count
66

9.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
121

17.74 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
682

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This school
9.7%
Selected comparison
13.2%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,573 rated schools reporting

−3.5 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This school
17.74
Selected comparison
32

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,673 rated schools reporting

−14.3 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Booker T Washington Elem
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 659 29 4.4% 40 6.07 8.9% 17.7
2021–22 743 59 7.9% 109 14.67 12.8% 30.8
2022–23 809 108 13.3% 229 28.31 13.6% 33.7
2023–24 817 45 5.5% 74 9.06 13.6% 33.6
2024–25 682 66 9.7% 121 17.74 13.2% 32
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Booker T Washington Elem in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 66 9.7% 121 17.74 13.2% 32
In-school suspensions 65 9.5% 118 17.30 11.7% 23.4
Out-of-school suspensions Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
DAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Mandatory DAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Discretionary DAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
JJAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Mandatory JJAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Discretionary JJAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Expulsions Not reported — Not reported — — —
Mandatory expulsions Not reported — Not reported — — —
Discretionary expulsions Not reported — Not reported — — —

Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized schools can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this school's own counts and rates remain fixed.

Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.

Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.

Spending per student

The campus and its parent district stay fixed while the selected same-sector txschools.net comparison changes with the page-wide control. TEA's own peer group and statewide reference remain visible as separately published, fixed TEA references.

$6k$19k$32k20182020202220242025
  • Booker T Washington Elem
  • Parent district: Elgin ISD
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This school
$10,749
Selected comparison
$12,959

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,070 rated schools reporting

−$2,210 vs similar economic context

For 2025, TEA reported $10,749 per student for this campus, $24,943 per student for its parent district, Elgin ISD, $18,972 per student for the Texas average.

Not reported in this TEA campus finance record: TEA peer group.

View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
YearBooker T Washington ElemParent district: Elgin ISDTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$8,028$12,821$13,054$8,050 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,951 rated schools reporting
2019$7,489$13,535$13,108$8,204 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,972 rated schools reporting
2020$8,656$13,475$14,058$8,736 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,990 rated schools reporting
2021$8,314$13,843$14,797$9,321 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,002 rated schools reporting
2022$8,836$16,712$15,708$10,654 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,020 rated schools reporting
2023$8,987$20,642$16,792$11,229 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,037 rated schools reporting
2024$9,040$30,558$18,125$12,261 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,058 rated schools reporting
2025$10,749$24,943$18,972$12,959 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,070 rated schools reporting

The selected-comparison reporting count is year-specific and can vary across the table. Dollar amounts are shown as TEA published them and are not adjusted for inflation.

Teachers and actual class size

Average salary
$60,138−$6,622 vs similar economic context
Teachers
35−8.2 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
18.6+4.6 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Booker T Washington Elem

Beginning: 14.1%1 to 5 years: 37.9%6 to 10 years: 13.8%11 to 20 years: 19.8%21 to 30 years: 14.1%
  • Beginning 14.1%
  • 1 to 5 years 37.9%
  • 6 to 10 years 13.8%
  • 11 to 20 years 19.8%
  • 21 to 30 years 14.1%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,083 reporting for every category shown · 2,083 in full cohort

Beginning: 6.8%1 to 5 years: 27.5%6 to 10 years: 19%11 to 20 years: 27.2%21 to 30 years: 15.1%Over 30 years: 3.7%
  • Beginning 6.8%
  • 1 to 5 years 27.5%
  • 6 to 10 years 19%
  • 11 to 20 years 27.2%
  • 21 to 30 years 15.1%
  • Over 30 years 3.7%

Average students in a class

TEA average class size by grade or subject for Booker T Washington Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subjectAverage students per classBooker T Washington Elem · 2024–25Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten23.718
Grade 123.418.3
Grade 224.418.4
Grade 325.318.8
Grade 424.419

These are TEA's actual class-size averages for the grade or subject shown, not the student-to-teacher ratio. TEA reported 5 of 12 categories for this campus; the categories are not combined into a made-up campus-wide average. Each selected comparison average uses only schools reporting that same grade or subject.

Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, fetched 24 August 2026.

Where this school ranks best

Out of 105 rankings computed across every published metric and every available comparison group, these are all the measures that meet this site’s distinctive-placement threshold. The list does not change when you change Compare against. Each measure appears once, using its strongest placement. Press Copy for a citable sentence.

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

1 measure

  • 9of 31

    Closing the Gaps

    Bastrop County · of the 31 that report this measure

These are selected high placements, not a summary. Every figure above this section is the full picture, including where this school ranks poorly. Each measure appears once here, using its strongest qualifying placement across all available comparison groups. Very large ties are left out because they do not distinguish this school; any tie that does appear is labeled. Every ranking this site publishes, including the ones no school would put in a press release.

Where this comes from

The Texas Education Agency publishes the underlying accountability reports and data downloads. Ratings, outcomes, demographics, staffing and finance on this page come from TEA data available through txschools.gov, fetched 15 August 2026. TEA’s Reports and Data Portal links the official bulk files. Enrollment history comes from TEA's PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The student-count context comes from TEA’s bulk accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026; TEA’s masking definitions explain withheld values. The dated notice, staffing, discipline, transfer, community and postsecondary sections cite their separate TEA, Census or THECB publication in place. Every archived source carries checksums so each number stays traceable to the bytes the public agency served.

Download the full dataset · this campus's district

Single-file records are pre-built for district-level records only, so there is no per-campus CSV to link here. Producing both formats for every entity would consume most of the 20,000-asset deployment limit before pages and shared data are counted. This campus is a row in the bulk files on the download page, keyed by its TEA id 011902101.