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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Traditional public school campus

Frank Madla Elem

Bexar County · Region 20: San Antonio · 269 students

Official school websiteSchool information and family resources

Current score
74/1002025-26
Change
−8 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−3.8 ptsvs 77.8 average · 1,584 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
1,058 of 1,584tied with 36 others
C74

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 77.8 average for 1,584 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

Frank Madla Elem is rated C by TEA, scoring 74 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 77.8 average for 1,584 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 8 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 1,058th of 1,584 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 36 others).

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 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

Comprehensive Support and Improvement

Official support label: Comprehensive Progress

Identification reason: CSI Low Performance

TEA track year 2 · Title I campus

Open the official TEA list and methodology

Schools identified for improvement

This school
Listed
Selected comparison
32.8%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,584 rated schools reporting

Schools on the PEG list

This school
Not listed
Selected comparison
9.4%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,584 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
90807060 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageFrank Madla Elem 8269806674 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
2025-26C7477.8 1,584 reporting81.3 7,646 reporting
2024-25D6677.4 1,567 reporting81.2 7,554 reporting
2023-24B8073.9 1,551 reporting78.9 7,466 reporting
2022-23D6973.2 1,548 reporting79.1 7,377 reporting
2021-22B8281.9 1,532 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 Achievement58 F−12.1 vs similar economic context · 1,472 reporting
  • School Progress75 C−3.9 vs similar economic context · 1,469 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps71 C−4.2 vs similar economic context · 1,460 reporting
  • Academic Growth75 C+1.5 vs similar economic context · 1,448 reporting
  • Relative Performance63 D−13.8 vs similar economic context · 1,468 reporting
  • Frank Madla Elem
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,584 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement58F2
School Progress75C5
Closing the Gaps71C9
Academic Growth75C5
Relative Performance63D7

Closest to moving up: School Progress, 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 (75), so Student Achievement (58) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 75.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level57%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,472 reporting
  • Meets grade level32%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,472 reporting
  • Masters grade level11%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,472 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level68%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,472 reporting
  • Meets grade level43%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,472 reporting
  • Masters grade level13%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,472 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level49%−17 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,469 reporting
  • Meets grade level24%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,469 reporting
  • Masters grade level9%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,469 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level50%−13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,391 reporting
  • Meets grade level24%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,391 reporting
  • Masters grade level13%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,391 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,584 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
269
Economically disadvantaged
97.0%+3.9 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
4.8%−38.2 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
21.9%+4.6 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
91.7%−1.2 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
33.4%+9.8 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Frank Madla Elem

African American: 3%Hispanic: 85.1%White: 10%American Indian: 0.7%Two or More Races: 1.1%
  • African American 3%
  • Hispanic 85.1%
  • White 10%
  • American Indian 0.7%
  • Two or More Races 1.1%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,584 reporting for every category shown · 1,584 in full cohort

African American: 15.1%Hispanic: 77.4%White: 4.5%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 1.2%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 1.4%
  • African American 15.1%
  • Hispanic 77.4%
  • White 4.5%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 1.2%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 1.4%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
269
Economically disadvantaged students
261
Emergent bilingual students
13
Special education students
59

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students
106
Students in TEA mobility denominator
346
TEA-published mobility rate
30.6%

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 269 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 113 (29.6%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
269

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
−113

Decrease · −29.6%

Change since 2021–22
−91

Decrease · −25.3%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This school
269
Selected comparison
550.6

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,566 rated schools reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Frank Madla Elem
School yearStudents enrolledFrank Madla ElemChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 360 First available year 600.4
2022–23 398 Increase of 38 (10.6%) 596.1
2023–24 392 Decrease of 6 (1.5%) 586
2024–25 382 Decrease of 10 (2.6%) 578.2
2025–26 269 Decrease of 113 (29.6%) 550.6

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
10

2.2% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
11

2.40 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
459

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This school
2.2%
Selected comparison
13.2%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 900 rated schools reporting

−11.0 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This school
2.4
Selected comparison
31.4

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 975 rated schools reporting

−29.0 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Frank Madla Elem
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 477 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2021–22 410 Not reported — Not reported — — —
2022–23 464 15 3.2% 30 6.47 13.8% 33
2023–24 461 Suppressed — 14 3.04 — 33.2
2024–25 459 10 2.2% 11 2.40 13.2% 31.4
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Frank Madla Elem in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 10 2.2% 11 2.40 13.2% 31.4
In-school suspensions Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Out-of-school suspensions Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
DAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Mandatory DAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
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$13k$20k20182020202220242025
  • Frank Madla Elem
  • Parent district: South San Antonio ISD
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This school
$10,460
Selected comparison
$13,491

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,566 rated schools reporting

−$3,031 vs similar economic context

For 2025, TEA reported $10,460 per student for this campus, $16,651 per student for its parent district, South San Antonio 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
YearFrank Madla ElemParent district: South San Antonio ISDTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$7,379$11,317$13,054$8,393 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,498 rated schools reporting
2019$6,684$12,074$13,108$8,380 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,514 rated schools reporting
2020$8,028$13,296$14,058$8,884 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,517 rated schools reporting
2021$8,319$13,922$14,797$9,764 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,519 rated schools reporting
2022$9,556$15,668$15,708$11,241 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,533 rated schools reporting
2023$9,147$15,705$16,792$11,773 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,548 rated schools reporting
2024$10,963$16,951$18,125$12,847 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,555 rated schools reporting
2025$10,460$16,651$18,972$13,491 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,566 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
$71,144+$2,486 vs similar economic context
Teachers
19−20.3 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
14.5−0.3 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Frank Madla Elem

Beginning: 5.4%1 to 5 years: 14%6 to 10 years: 15.1%11 to 20 years: 30.6%21 to 30 years: 34.4%
  • Beginning 5.4%
  • 1 to 5 years 14%
  • 6 to 10 years 15.1%
  • 11 to 20 years 30.6%
  • 21 to 30 years 34.4%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,584 reporting for every category shown · 1,584 in full cohort

Beginning: 7.7%1 to 5 years: 27.1%6 to 10 years: 18.5%11 to 20 years: 27.1%21 to 30 years: 14.9%Over 30 years: 3.4%
  • Beginning 7.7%
  • 1 to 5 years 27.1%
  • 6 to 10 years 18.5%
  • 11 to 20 years 27.1%
  • 21 to 30 years 14.9%
  • Over 30 years 3.4%

Average students in a class

TEA average class size by grade or subject for Frank Madla Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subjectAverage students per classFrank Madla Elem · 2024–25Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten17.518.1
Grade 117.518.3
Grade 218.318.2
Grade 317.418.3
Grade 42318.2
Grade 520.618.9

These are TEA's actual class-size averages for the grade or subject shown, not the student-to-teacher ratio. TEA reported 6 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 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 015908108.