+19.2 ptsvs 79.8 average · 2,005 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
2 of 2,005tied with 6 others
Score vs region
+16.8 ptsvs 82.2 average · 1,157 rated schools in Region 10: Richardson
Region 10: Richardson placement
2 of 1,157tied with 3 others
Score vs county
+17.6 ptsvs 81.4 average · 563 rated schools in Dallas County
Dallas County placement
2 of 563tied with 3 others
Score vs similar-size group
+18.6 ptsvs 80.4 average · 4,633 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
3 of 4,633tied with 22 others
Score vs state
+17.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
5 of 7,646tied with 29 others
A99
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is flat; under the rules in force back then it scored 95 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 79.8 average for 2,005 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 82.2 average for 1,157 rated schools in Region 10: Richardson.The current score is above the 81.4 average for 563 rated schools in Dallas County.The current score is above the 80.4 average for 4,633 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
Current strength
Closing the Gaps above the similar-context average
100+23 pts vs 77
100 is 23 points above
the 77 average among 1,873 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Tied for 1st of 1,873 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure; 10 schools share that value.
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
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School is rated A by TEA, scoring 99 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 79.8 average for 2,005 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 2nd of 2,005 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 6 others).
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School is rated A by TEA, scoring 99 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.2 average for 1,157 rated schools in Region 10: Richardson. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 2nd of 1,157 rated schools in Region 10: Richardson (tied with 3 others).
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School is rated A by TEA, scoring 99 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.4 average for 563 rated schools in Dallas County. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 2nd of 563 rated schools in Dallas County (tied with 3 others).
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School is rated A by TEA, scoring 99 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.4 average for 4,633 similarly sized rated schools. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 3rd of 4,633 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 22 others).
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School is rated A by TEA, scoring 99 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
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 A with 95 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 Achievement98 A+20.5 vs similar economic context · 1,898 reporting
School Progress98 A+17.3 vs similar economic context · 1,891 reporting
Closing the Gaps100 A+23.0 vs similar economic context · 1,873 reporting
Academic Growth80 B+6.1 vs similar economic context · 1,831 reporting
Relative Performance98 A+18.9 vs similar economic context · 1,891 reporting
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,005 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
98
A
—
School Progress
98
A
—
Closing the Gaps
100
A
—
Academic Growth
80
B
10
Relative Performance
98
A
—
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%.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level98%+25 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,898 reporting
Meets grade level88%+40 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,898 reporting
Masters grade level50%+31 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,898 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level100%+24 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,895 reporting
Meets grade level97%+45 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,895 reporting
Masters grade level58%+37 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,895 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level98%+27 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,886 reporting
Meets grade level82%+40 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,886 reporting
Masters grade level37%+21 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,886 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level91%+17 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,733 reporting
Meets grade level68%+23 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,733 reporting
Masters grade level34%+14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,733 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level98%+25 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 931 reporting
Meets grade level93%+48 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 931 reporting
Masters grade level73%+53 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 931 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,005 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.
Graduation
Four-Year
100.0%+6.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 451 rated schools reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+7.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 448 rated schools reporting
Six-Year
100.0%+7.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 448 rated schools reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 454 rated schools reporting
These measures use TEA's standard-accountability population. Each comparison average includes only schools in that population that report that specific measure; its reporting count is shown beside the average. It is an unweighted average of those reported school rates, not a pooled rate across every student in the group.
College, career and military readiness
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%+12.1 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This school% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%
87.9%
+12.1
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 485 rated schools reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
100.0%
59.8%
+40.2
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
93.2%
27.7%
+65.5
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
90.5%
10.9%
+79.6
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
20.3%
33.8%
−13.5
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
2.7%
38.1%
−35.4
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
1.8%
−1.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
7.1%
−7.1
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
3.8%
−3.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
0.0%
3.3%
−3.3
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
2.7%
8.0%
−5.3
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
1.4%
3.2%
−1.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 489 rated schools reporting
Every row is a share of this school's graduates, and every row is a way of
meeting CCMR — so on every row, a bigger share is better. Difference is this
school minus the average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate,
counted in percentage points: +5.0 would mean five more graduates in every hundred met that
criterion here. The selected comparison is an unweighted average of the reported school percentages, not a pooled rate across all graduates in the group. Graduates may meet several criteria, so the rows do not add up to the total.
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.
After high school: the following fall
Where school graduates appeared in Texas public higher-education records the fall after graduation. This is a limited next-step measure, not an eventual college-going or completion rate.
Graduates in the report
80
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
47
58.8% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
29
36.3% of graduates
Not trackable
4
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This school
80
Selected comparison
238.5
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 392 rated schools reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This school
47
Selected comparison
104.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 392 rated schools reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This school
58.8%
Selected comparison
44.0%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 392 rated schools reporting
+14.8 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This school
36.3%
Selected comparison
50.7%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 392 rated schools reporting
−14.5 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This school
5.0%
Selected comparison
5.3%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 392 rated schools reporting
−0.3 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY (003615)7
U. OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON (003656)7
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (003594)7
Selected comparison counts are neutral cohort scale context. The percentages put differently sized graduating classes on the same basis, but still cover only the limited Texas-public system observed by this report.
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, high-school graduates enrolled in higher education, fetched 24 August 2026. The report covers graduates who enrolled in a Texas public college or university the following fall and includes only districts or campuses with more than 25 graduates.
“Not found” does not mean a graduate did not continue their education. It can include private or out-of-state college, work, military service, enrollment after the fall term, or another path the Texas public system does not observe.
“Not trackable” is not an outcome. THECB uses it for graduates with a non-standard identifier that could not be matched to higher-education records.
Who this school serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Students
617
Economically disadvantaged
65.6%±0.0 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
20.9%+2.6 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
1.6%−17.3 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
96.6%+2.5 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
4.6%−12.2 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
African American 5.5%
Hispanic 83.6%
White 7.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.9%
Two or More Races 1.3%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,005 reporting for every category shown · 2,005 in full cohort
African American 11.5%
Hispanic 52.3%
White 29.9%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 2.2%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 10: Richardson · 1,157 reporting for every category shown · 1,157 in full cohort
African American 17.4%
Hispanic 43.5%
White 24.5%
American Indian 0.6%
Asian 9.9%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4%
Selected comparison averageFor Dallas County · 563 reporting for every category shown · 563 in full cohort
African American 21.3%
Hispanic 59%
White 10.9%
American Indian 0.6%
Asian 5.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.6%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,633 reporting for every category shown · 4,633 in full cohort
African American 12.2%
Hispanic 54.5%
White 24.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 4.8%
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
617
Economically disadvantaged students
405
Emergent bilingual students
129
Special education students
10
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
8
Students in TEA mobility denominator
609
TEA-published mobility rate
1.3%
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 617 students in 2025–26, an increase of 13 (2.2%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
617
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+13
Increase · +2.2%
Change since 2021–22
+25
Increase · +4.2%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This school
617
Selected comparison
626.4
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,970 rated schools reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
School year
Students enrolledIrma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
592
First available year
641.7
2022–23
599
Increase of 7 (1.2%)
647.7
2023–24
610
Increase of 11 (1.8%)
645.8
2024–25
604
Decrease of 6 (1.0%)
642.4
2025–26
617
Increase of 13 (2.2%)
626.4
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.
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
Suppressed
Rate not available
Disciplinary actions
Suppressed
Rate not available
Cumulative year-end enrollment
605
2024–25
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
593
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2021–22
596
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2022–23
599
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2023–24
610
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2024–25
605
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
In-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Out-of-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
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.
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
Parent district: Dallas ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This school
$9,518
Selected comparison
$12,728
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,979 rated schools reporting
−$3,210 vs similar economic context
For 2025, TEA reported $9,518 per student for this campus, $23,271 per student for its parent district, Dallas 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
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
Parent district: Dallas ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$15,563
$13,363
$13,054
$7,954
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,843 rated schools reporting
2019
$7,629
$13,990
$13,108
$8,118
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,858 rated schools reporting
2020
$7,996
$14,981
$14,058
$8,697
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,877 rated schools reporting
2021
$7,854
$17,075
$14,797
$9,165
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,891 rated schools reporting
2022
$8,368
$18,716
$15,708
$10,503
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,912 rated schools reporting
2023
$8,997
$20,932
$16,792
$11,199
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,935 rated schools reporting
2024
$9,874
$22,990
$18,125
$12,096
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,964 rated schools reporting
2025
$9,518
$23,271
$18,972
$12,728
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,979 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
$79,303+$12,877 vs similar economic context
Teachers
37−5.7 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
16.7+2.8 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School
Beginning 2.7%
1 to 5 years 16.2%
6 to 10 years 40.5%
11 to 20 years 21.6%
21 to 30 years 16.2%
Over 30 years 2.7%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,005 reporting for every category shown · 2,005 in full cohort
Beginning 6.3%
1 to 5 years 26.4%
6 to 10 years 19.1%
11 to 20 years 27.8%
21 to 30 years 15.8%
Over 30 years 4%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 10: Richardson · 1,157 reporting for every category shown · 1,157 in full cohort
Beginning 6.9%
1 to 5 years 29%
6 to 10 years 20.1%
11 to 20 years 27.5%
21 to 30 years 13.7%
Over 30 years 2.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Dallas County · 563 reporting for every category shown · 563 in full cohort
Beginning 7.5%
1 to 5 years 30.2%
6 to 10 years 21.2%
11 to 20 years 26.5%
21 to 30 years 11.9%
Over 30 years 2.7%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,633 reporting for every category shown · 4,633 in full cohort
Beginning 6.1%
1 to 5 years 26.5%
6 to 10 years 19.8%
11 to 20 years 29%
21 to 30 years 15.4%
Over 30 years 3%
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 Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in 2024–25
Grade or subject
Average students per classIrma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School · 2024–25
Average students per classselected comparison
Grade 6
20.2
17.7
Secondary English
14.9
15.1
Secondary languages other than English
14.2
17.6
Secondary math
18.9
15.9
Secondary science
16.2
17.3
Secondary social studies
19.9
17.2
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.
Out of 200 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
5 measures
1of 7,254
Reading — Approaches
Texas average · of the 7,254 that report this measure · tied with 32
1of 7,185
Closing the Gaps
Texas average · of the 7,185 that report this measure · tied with 39 · full ranking
1of 1,898
Student Achievement
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,898 that report this measure · tied with 12
1of 1,891
Relative Performance
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,891 that report this measure · tied with 9
1of 489
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 489 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
2 measures
2of 2,005
Overall score
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 2,005 that report this measure · tied with 6
3of 1,891
School Progress
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,891 that report this measure · tied with 9
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
7 measures
4of 931
Social Studies — Masters
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 931 that report this measure · tied with 1
6of 1,895
Reading — Meets
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,895 that report this measure · tied with 3
6of 1,895
Reading — Masters
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,895 that report this measure · tied with 1
7of 183
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Region 10: Richardson · of the 183 that report this measure
9of 1,898
All Subjects — Masters
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,898 that report this measure · tied with 1
9of 1,886
Math — Meets
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,886 that report this measure · tied with 3
9of 549
Math — Approaches
Dallas County · of the 549 that report this measure · tied with 4
Other top-5% rankings
High placements in larger reporting groups
6 measures
13of 1,898
All Subjects — Approaches
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,898 that report this measure · tied with 4
13of 1,898
All Subjects — Meets
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,898 that report this measure · tied with 3
14of 931
Social Studies — Meets
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 931 that report this measure · tied with 1
38of 1,940
Attendance
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,940 that report this measure · tied with 9
43of 1,886
Math — Masters
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,886 that report this measure · tied with 7
50of 1,940
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,940 that report this measure · tied with 1
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 057905035.