Districts, charter school systems & campuses · Source: Texas Education Agency
Eissler ElemB86vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Traditional public school campus
Eissler Elem
Montgomery County · Region 06: Huntsville · 713 students
Current score
86/1002025-26
Score vs similar economic context
±0.0 ptsvs 86 average · 1,181 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
654 of 1,181tied with 52 others
Score vs region
+5.6 ptsvs 80.4 average · 314 rated schools in Region 06: Huntsville
Region 06: Huntsville placement
96 of 314tied with 11 others
Score vs county
+4.1 ptsvs 81.9 average · 133 rated schools in Montgomery County
Montgomery County placement
48 of 133tied with 4 others
Score vs similar-size group
+5.3 ptsvs 80.7 average · 4,254 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
1,460 of 4,254tied with 144 others
Score vs state
+4.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
2,764 of 7,646tied with 299 others
B86
At a glance
The current score is level with the 86 average for 1,181 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 80.4 average for 314 rated schools in Region 06: Huntsville.The current score is above the 81.9 average for 133 rated schools in Montgomery County.The current score is above the 80.7 average for 4,254 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
65%vs 61.5% avg · +3.5 pts
Masters
34%vs 29.6% avg · +4.4 pts
Among 1,154 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
Eissler Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — level with the 86 average for 1,181 rated schools serving a similar economic context. TEA has published 1 year of scores for this school, so there is no trend to read yet.
Ranks 654th of 1,181 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 52 others).
Eissler Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.4 average for 314 rated schools in Region 06: Huntsville. TEA has published 1 year of scores for this school, so there is no trend to read yet.
Ranks 96th of 314 rated schools in Region 06: Huntsville (tied with 11 others).
Eissler Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.9 average for 133 rated schools in Montgomery County. TEA has published 1 year of scores for this school, so there is no trend to read yet.
Ranks 48th of 133 rated schools in Montgomery County (tied with 4 others).
Eissler Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.7 average for 4,254 similarly sized rated schools. TEA has published 1 year of scores for this school, so there is no trend to read yet.
Ranks 1,460th of 4,254 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 144 others).
Eissler Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. TEA has published 1 year of scores for this school, so there is no trend to read yet.
Follow the solid line to see how this school has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
Compare against
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 Achievement90 A+3.4 vs similar economic context · 1,154 reporting
School Progress82 B−1.4 vs similar economic context · 1,151 reporting
Closing the Gaps77 C−6.5 vs similar economic context · 1,142 reporting
Academic Growth73 C−6.2 vs similar economic context · 1,132 reporting
Relative Performance82 B+2.2 vs similar economic context · 1,151 reporting
Eissler Elem
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,181 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
90
A
—
School Progress
82
B
8
Closing the Gaps
77
C
3
Academic Growth
73
C
7
Relative Performance
82
B
8
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 3 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 (90), so
School Progress (82) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 90.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level83%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,154 reporting
Meets grade level65%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,154 reporting
Masters grade level34%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,154 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level85%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,153 reporting
Meets grade level71%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,153 reporting
Masters grade level42%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,153 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level82%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,150 reporting
Meets grade level63%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,150 reporting
Masters grade level30%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,150 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level79%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,064 reporting
Meets grade level48%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,064 reporting
Masters grade level19%−13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,064 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,181 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
713
Economically disadvantaged
34.8%−0.9 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
22.7%+12.1 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
17.0%−0.7 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
—
Chronically absent
—
Student demographics
Eissler Elem
African American 12.2%
Hispanic 34.8%
White 35.8%
American Indian 0.1%
Asian 11.2%
Pacific Islander 0.4%
Two or More Races 5.4%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,181 reporting for every category shown · 1,181 in full cohort
African American 9.1%
Hispanic 32.2%
White 47.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 6%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 06: Huntsville · 314 reporting for every category shown · 314 in full cohort
African American 11.5%
Hispanic 38.9%
White 42.7%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 2.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.3%
Selected comparison averageFor Montgomery County · 133 reporting for every category shown · 133 in full cohort
African American 9%
Hispanic 43.3%
White 39.7%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 3.3%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,254 reporting for every category shown · 4,254 in full cohort
African American 12.3%
Hispanic 53.9%
White 24.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 5.4%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.6%
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
706
Economically disadvantaged students
246
Emergent bilingual students
160
Special education students
120
TEA context labels
New campus compared with last year’s fall enrollment
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
Not reported
Students in TEA mobility denominator
Not reported
TEA-published mobility rate
Not reported
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.
Teachers
Average salary
$67,609−$268 vs similar economic context
Teachers
49−1.0 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
14.4+0.1 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Eissler Elem
Beginning 10.2%
1 to 5 years 40.8%
6 to 10 years 26.5%
11 to 20 years 18.4%
21 to 30 years 2%
Over 30 years 2%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,181 reporting for every category shown · 1,181 in full cohort
Beginning 5.1%
1 to 5 years 22.9%
6 to 10 years 19.6%
11 to 20 years 31.6%
21 to 30 years 17.3%
Over 30 years 3.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 06: Huntsville · 314 reporting for every category shown · 314 in full cohort
Beginning 7.5%
1 to 5 years 27.7%
6 to 10 years 18.9%
11 to 20 years 27.6%
21 to 30 years 13.6%
Over 30 years 4%
Selected comparison averageFor Montgomery County · 133 reporting for every category shown · 133 in full cohort
Beginning 7.4%
1 to 5 years 29.1%
6 to 10 years 22.3%
11 to 20 years 27.6%
21 to 30 years 11.5%
Over 30 years 2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,254 reporting for every category shown · 4,254 in full cohort
Beginning 6.1%
1 to 5 years 26.6%
6 to 10 years 20%
11 to 20 years 29%
21 to 30 years 15.2%
Over 30 years 2.9%
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%
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 170902138.