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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Traditional public school campus

China Spring MS

McLennan County · Region 12: Waco · 511 students

Official school websiteSchool information and family resources

Current score
83/1002025-26
Change
−5 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−4.7 ptsvs 87.7 average · 974 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
750 of 974tied with 21 others
B83

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 85 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 87.7 average for 974 rated schools serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Current strength

Chronically absent lower than the similar-context average

7.8% −2.6 pts vs 10.4%

  • 7.8% is 2.6 percentage points lower than the 10.4% average among 952 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measure

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

China Spring MS is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 87.7 average for 974 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 750th of 974 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 21 others).

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

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

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
908070 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageChina Spring MS 8883858783 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 B with 85 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
2025-26B8387.7 974 reporting81.3 7,646 reporting
2024-25B8787.5 960 reporting81.2 7,554 reporting
2023-24B8586.2 948 reporting78.9 7,466 reporting
2022-23B8386.6 930 reporting79.1 7,377 reporting
2021-22B8887.7 915 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 Achievement83 B−5.5 vs similar economic context · 954 reporting
  • School Progress82 B−2.5 vs similar economic context · 951 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps82 B−3.3 vs similar economic context · 944 reporting
  • Academic Growth82 B+1.3 vs similar economic context · 933 reporting
  • Relative Performance63 D−17.1 vs similar economic context · 951 reporting
  • China Spring MS
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (974 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement83B7
School Progress82B8
Closing the Gaps82B8
Academic Growth82B8
Relative Performance63D7

Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 7 points below A 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 Student Achievement (83), so School Progress (82) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 83.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level77%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 954 reporting
  • Meets grade level54%−11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 954 reporting
  • Masters grade level24%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 954 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level90%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 953 reporting
  • Meets grade level68%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 953 reporting
  • Masters grade level42%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 953 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level77%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 950 reporting
  • Meets grade level55%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 950 reporting
  • Masters grade level14%−14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 950 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level72%−14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 868 reporting
  • Meets grade level47%−17 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 868 reporting
  • Masters grade level18%−18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 868 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level55%−30 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 487 reporting
  • Meets grade level25%−37 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 487 reporting
  • Masters grade level10%−25 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 487 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (974 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
511
Economically disadvantaged
28.8%−0.9 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
2.5%−7.6 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
13.1%−4.1 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.8%+0.5 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
7.8%−2.6 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

China Spring MS

African American: 4.5%Hispanic: 26.3%White: 63.1%Asian: 1.8%Two or More Races: 4.3%
  • African American 4.5%
  • Hispanic 26.3%
  • White 63.1%
  • Asian 1.8%
  • Two or More Races 4.3%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 974 reporting for every category shown · 974 in full cohort

African American: 8.9%Hispanic: 29.3%White: 48.3%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 8.1%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 4.9%
  • African American 8.9%
  • Hispanic 29.3%
  • White 48.3%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 8.1%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 4.9%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
510
Economically disadvantaged students
147
Emergent bilingual students
13
Special education students
67

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students
47
Students in TEA mobility denominator
512
TEA-published mobility rate
9.2%

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 511 students in 2025–26, an increase of 28 (5.8%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
511

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
+28

Increase · +5.8%

Change since 2022–23
+33

Increase · +6.9%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This school
511
Selected comparison
802.1

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 964 rated schools reporting

Student enrollment by school year for China Spring MS
School yearStudents enrolledChina Spring MSChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 Not reported Not available —
2022–23 478 No adjacent prior year 820.7
2023–24 505 Increase of 27 (5.6%) 814.9
2024–25 483 Decrease of 22 (4.4%) 811.3
2025–26 511 Increase of 28 (5.8%) 802.1

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
75

14.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
206

40.23 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
512

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This school
14.7%
Selected comparison
8.6%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 724 rated schools reporting

+6.1 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This school
40.23
Selected comparison
17.4

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 808 rated schools reporting

+22.8 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for China Spring MS
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 477 60 12.6% 92 19.29 7.0% 12.6
2021–22 461 54 11.7% 102 22.13 9.2% 18.7
2022–23 497 88 17.7% 164 33.00 9.5% 19.3
2023–24 524 75 14.3% 143 27.29 8.9% 18.6
2024–25 512 75 14.7% 206 40.23 8.6% 17.4
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for China Spring MS in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 75 14.7% 206 40.23 8.6% 17.4
In-school suspensions 66 12.9% 146 28.52 7.7% 13.6
Out-of-school suspensions 25 4.9% 31 6.05 4.2% 5.7
DAEP placements 24 4.7% 29 5.66 3.1% 3.6
Mandatory DAEP placements Suppressed — 18 3.52 — 2.8
Discretionary DAEP placements Suppressed — 11 2.15 — 1.8
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.

$5k$15k$25k20182020202220242025
  • China Spring MS
  • Parent district: China Spring ISD
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This school
$6,287
Selected comparison
$11,638

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 959 rated schools reporting

−$5,351 vs similar economic context

For 2025, TEA reported $6,287 per student for this campus, $13,436 per student for its parent district, China Spring 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
YearChina Spring MSParent district: China Spring ISDTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$5,542$10,013$13,054$7,644 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 864 rated schools reporting
2019$5,452$10,650$13,108$7,753 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 877 rated schools reporting
2020$6,109$10,186$14,058$8,091 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 887 rated schools reporting
2021$6,561$11,934$14,797$8,509 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 896 rated schools reporting
2022$6,446$23,528$15,708$9,752 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 914 rated schools reporting
2023$6,346$18,666$16,792$10,319 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 931 rated schools reporting
2024$6,156$14,392$18,125$11,404 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 947 rated schools reporting
2025$6,287$13,436$18,972$11,638 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 959 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
$62,711−$5,582 vs similar economic context
Teachers
32−20.7 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
16.1+1.6 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

China Spring MS

Beginning: 9.2%1 to 5 years: 28.2%6 to 10 years: 9.5%11 to 20 years: 32%21 to 30 years: 20.9%
  • Beginning 9.2%
  • 1 to 5 years 28.2%
  • 6 to 10 years 9.5%
  • 11 to 20 years 32%
  • 21 to 30 years 20.9%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 974 reporting for every category shown · 974 in full cohort

Beginning: 4.8%1 to 5 years: 22.4%6 to 10 years: 19.6%11 to 20 years: 32.4%21 to 30 years: 17.4%Over 30 years: 3.3%
  • Beginning 4.8%
  • 1 to 5 years 22.4%
  • 6 to 10 years 19.6%
  • 11 to 20 years 32.4%
  • 21 to 30 years 17.4%
  • Over 30 years 3.3%

Average students in a class

TEA average class size by grade or subject for China Spring MS in 2024–25
Grade or subjectAverage students per classChina Spring MS · 2024–25Average students per classselected comparison
Secondary English20.616.8
Secondary math17.317.5
Secondary science2319
Secondary social studies24.819.2

These are TEA's actual class-size averages for the grade or subject shown, not the student-to-teacher ratio. TEA reported 4 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 120 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

2 measures

  • 8of 75

    Reading — Masters

    McLennan County · of the 75 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 9of 75

    Reading — Approaches

    McLennan County · of the 75 that report this measure · tied with 2

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 161920041.