Districts, charter school systems & campuses · Source: Texas Education Agency
Cisco JHB83vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Traditional public school campus
Cisco JH
Eastland County · Region 14: Abilene · 189 students
Current score
83/1002025-26
Change
−3 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+0.6 ptsvs 82.4 average · 1,612 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
789 of 1,612tied with 66 others
Score vs region
+2.5 ptsvs 80.5 average · 122 rated schools in Region 14: Abilene
Region 14: Abilene placement
52 of 122tied with 3 others
Score vs county
+5.5 ptsvs 77.5 average · 15 rated schools in Eastland County
Eastland County placement
6 of 15among reporting schools
Score vs similar-size group
+1.5 ptsvs 81.5 average · 1,167 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
566 of 1,167tied with 34 others
Score vs state
+1.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
3,601 of 7,646tied with 244 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 88 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 82.4 average for 1,612 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 80.5 average for 122 rated schools in Region 14: Abilene.The current score is above the 77.5 average for 15 rated schools in Eastland County.The current score is above the 81.5 average for 1,167 similarly sized rated schools.The current score is above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools.
Evidence worth noticing
Strengths and momentum
STAAR result
All Subjects above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters
Meets
56%vs 54.2% avg · +1.8 pts
Masters
25%vs 23.8% avg · +1.2 pts
Among 1,562 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
A precomputed strengths set is not available for this pinned entity. The page’s direct numeric comparisons still update to that pin.
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
Cisco JH is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.4 average for 1,612 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 789th of 1,612 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 66 others).
Cisco JH is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.5 average for 122 rated schools in Region 14: Abilene. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 52nd of 122 rated schools in Region 14: Abilene (tied with 3 others).
Cisco JH is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 77.5 average for 15 rated schools in Eastland County. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 6th of 15 rated schools in Eastland County.
Cisco JH is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.5 average for 1,167 similarly sized rated schools. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 566th of 1,167 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 34 others).
Cisco JH is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Official state and federal designations can carry support, reporting requirements or a family transfer option that a single A–F rating does not explain.
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,612 rated schools reporting
Schools on the PEG list
This school
Not listed
Selected comparison
0.8%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,612 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
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 88 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.
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 Achievement85 B+2.7 vs similar economic context · 1,562 reporting
School Progress84 B+2.3 vs similar economic context · 1,557 reporting
Closing the Gaps78 C−1.7 vs similar economic context · 1,548 reporting
Academic Growth78 C+1.9 vs similar economic context · 1,531 reporting
Relative Performance84 B+4.8 vs similar economic context · 1,557 reporting
Cisco JH
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,612 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
85
B
5
School Progress
84
B
6
Closing the Gaps
78
C
2
Academic Growth
78
C
2
Relative Performance
84
B
6
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 2 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 Student Achievement (85), so
School Progress (84) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 85.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level81%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,562 reporting
Meets grade level56%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,562 reporting
Masters grade level25%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,562 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level83%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,561 reporting
Meets grade level65%+6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,561 reporting
Masters grade level35%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,561 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level79%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,555 reporting
Meets grade level47%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,555 reporting
Masters grade level12%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,555 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level88%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,446 reporting
Meets grade level67%+14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,446 reporting
Masters grade level47%+21 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,446 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level69%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 817 reporting
Meets grade level48%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 817 reporting
Masters grade level17%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 817 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,612 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
189
Economically disadvantaged
47.6%−0.7 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
1.1%−11.5 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
20.6%+2.1 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.4%+0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
10.0%−3.9 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Cisco JH
African American 1.6%
Hispanic 16.9%
White 77.2%
Asian 2.1%
Two or More Races 2.1%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,612 reporting for every category shown · 1,612 in full cohort
African American 9.3%
Hispanic 39.5%
White 43.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 3.3%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 14: Abilene · 122 reporting for every category shown · 122 in full cohort
African American 4.1%
Hispanic 36.9%
White 54.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Eastland County · 15 reporting for every category shown · 15 in full cohort
African American 0.8%
Hispanic 25.4%
White 71.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 1.8%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 1,167 reporting for every category shown · 1,167 in full cohort
African American 7.7%
Hispanic 46.4%
White 41.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.1%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.1%
Statewide average7,646 reporting for every category shown · 7,646 Texas schools in full cohort
African American 11.5%
Hispanic 52.6%
White 27.8%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 4.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.4%
Student counts behind the percentages
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
Students in this TEA accountability summary
189
Economically disadvantaged students
90
Emergent bilingual students
2
Special education students
39
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
21
Students in TEA mobility denominator
180
TEA-published mobility rate
11.7%
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 189 students in 2025–26, an increase of 19 (11.2%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
189
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+19
Increase · +11.2%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This school
189
Selected comparison
661.9
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,575 rated schools reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Cisco JH
School year
Students enrolledCisco JH
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
Not reported
Not available
—
2022–23
161
No adjacent prior year
665.2
2023–24
Not reported
Not available
—
2024–25
170
No adjacent prior year
661.5
2025–26
189
Increase of 19 (11.2%)
661.9
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.
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
12
6.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
19
10.67 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
178
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This school
6.7%
Selected comparison
11.9%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,259 rated schools reporting
−5.2 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This school
10.67
Selected comparison
26.3
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,351 rated schools reporting
−15.6 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Cisco JH
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
199
25
12.6%
50
25.13
9.5%
18.1
2021–22
193
21
10.9%
40
20.73
11.8%
25.8
2022–23
179
19
10.6%
51
28.49
12.2%
27.4
2023–24
181
19
10.5%
33
18.23
12.2%
27.9
2024–25
178
12
6.7%
19
10.67
11.9%
26.3
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Cisco JH in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
12
6.7%
19
10.67
11.9%
26.3
In-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
12
6.74
—
20.2
Out-of-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
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.
Cisco JH
Parent district: Cisco ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This school
$8,860
Selected comparison
$12,045
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,583 rated schools reporting
−$3,185 vs similar economic context
For 2025, TEA reported $8,860 per student for this campus, $15,430 per student for its parent district, Cisco 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
Year
Cisco JH
Parent district: Cisco ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$6,391
$10,983
$13,054
$7,819
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,460 rated schools reporting
2019
$6,860
$11,547
$13,108
$8,005
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,479 rated schools reporting
2020
$7,292
$13,409
$14,058
$8,493
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,491 rated schools reporting
2021
$8,831
$13,500
$14,797
$8,905
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,510 rated schools reporting
2022
$9,363
$17,303
$15,708
$10,208
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,521 rated schools reporting
2023
$9,904
$15,883
$16,792
$10,643
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,539 rated schools reporting
2024
$9,168
$15,370
$18,125
$11,617
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,557 rated schools reporting
2025
$8,860
$15,430
$18,972
$12,045
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,583 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
$61,774−$5,228 vs similar economic context
Teachers
17−25.8 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
10.9−9.4 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Cisco JH
Beginning 2.3%
1 to 5 years 13.8%
6 to 10 years 14.9%
11 to 20 years 35.1%
21 to 30 years 22.4%
Over 30 years 11.5%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,612 reporting for every category shown · 1,612 in full cohort
Beginning 5.5%
1 to 5 years 24.1%
6 to 10 years 19.4%
11 to 20 years 29.8%
21 to 30 years 16.8%
Over 30 years 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 14: Abilene · 122 reporting for every category shown · 122 in full cohort
Beginning 6.7%
1 to 5 years 25.9%
6 to 10 years 16.7%
11 to 20 years 27.4%
21 to 30 years 16.6%
Over 30 years 5.9%
Selected comparison averageFor Eastland County · 15 reporting for every category shown · 15 in full cohort
Beginning 10.3%
1 to 5 years 24.7%
6 to 10 years 13.7%
11 to 20 years 23.9%
21 to 30 years 20.2%
Over 30 years 7.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 1,167 reporting for every category shown · 1,167 in full cohort
Beginning 6.6%
1 to 5 years 23.6%
6 to 10 years 17.4%
11 to 20 years 28.3%
21 to 30 years 17.7%
Over 30 years 5.6%
Statewide average7,646 reporting for every category shown · 7,646 Texas schools in full cohort
Beginning 6.2%
1 to 5 years 25.6%
6 to 10 years 19.2%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 15.9%
Over 30 years 3.7%
Average students in a class
TEA average class size by grade or subject for Cisco JH in 2024–25
Grade or subject
Average students per classCisco JH · 2024–25
Average students per classselected comparison
Grade 6
18.7
17.7
Secondary English
17.7
15.2
Secondary math
13.3
16.2
Secondary science
12.6
17.7
Secondary social studies
16.3
17.7
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.
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.
#1 rankings
First-place results
2 measures
1of 15
Reading — Masters
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
1of 14
Science — Masters
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
7 measures
2of 15
All Subjects — Masters
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
2of 15
Reading — Meets
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
2of 14
Math — Meets
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
3of 15
All Subjects — Meets
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
3of 15
Reading — Approaches
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure · tied with 2
3of 14
Math — Approaches
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
3of 14
Science — Meets
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 1
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
13 measures
4of 15
All Subjects — Approaches
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
4of 15
Attendance
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
4of 15
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
4of 14
Science — Approaches
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
5of 15
Student Achievement
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
5of 14
School Progress
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
5of 14
Relative Performance
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
5of 10
Social Studies — Meets
Eastland County · of the 10 that report this measure
5of 10
Social Studies — Masters
Eastland County · of the 10 that report this measure
6of 15
Overall score
Eastland County · of the 15 that report this measure
6of 14
Closing the Gaps
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
6of 14
Academic Growth
Eastland County · of the 14 that report this measure
7of 10
Social Studies — Approaches
Eastland County · of the 10 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.
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 067902041.