Districts, charter school systems & campuses · Source: Texas Education Agency
J Kawas ElemA93vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Traditional public school campus
J Kawas Elem
Webb County · Region 01: Edinburg · 398 students
Current score
93/1002025-26
Change
−6 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+15.2 ptsvs 77.8 average · 1,755 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
44 of 1,755tied with 15 others
Score vs region
+7.3 ptsvs 85.7 average · 505 rated schools in Region 01: Edinburg
Region 01: Edinburg placement
50 of 505tied with 12 others
Score vs county
+4.7 ptsvs 88.3 average · 76 rated schools in Webb County
Webb County placement
13 of 76tied with 3 others
Score vs similar-size group
+12.9 ptsvs 80.1 average · 3,979 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
250 of 3,979tied with 97 others
Score vs state
+11.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
588 of 7,646tied with 249 others
A93
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 99 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 77.8 average for 1,755 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 85.7 average for 505 rated schools in Region 01: Edinburg.The current score is above the 88.3 average for 76 rated schools in Webb County.The current score is above the 80.1 average for 3,979 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
68%vs 40.5% avg · +27.5 pts
Masters
39%vs 16.1% avg · +22.9 pts
Among 1,630 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
J Kawas Elem is rated A by TEA, scoring 93 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 77.8 average for 1,755 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 44th of 1,755 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 15 others).
J Kawas Elem is rated A by TEA, scoring 93 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 85.7 average for 505 rated schools in Region 01: Edinburg. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 50th of 505 rated schools in Region 01: Edinburg (tied with 12 others).
J Kawas Elem is rated A by TEA, scoring 93 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 88.3 average for 76 rated schools in Webb County. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 13th of 76 rated schools in Webb County (tied with 3 others).
J Kawas Elem is rated A by TEA, scoring 93 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.1 average for 3,979 similarly sized rated schools. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 250th of 3,979 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 97 others).
J Kawas Elem is rated A by TEA, scoring 93 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is down 6 points 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 99 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 Achievement91 A+20.7 vs similar economic context · 1,630 reporting
School Progress93 A+14.1 vs similar economic context · 1,627 reporting
Closing the Gaps93 A+17.8 vs similar economic context · 1,618 reporting
Academic Growth91 A+17.6 vs similar economic context · 1,605 reporting
Relative Performance93 A+16.2 vs similar economic context · 1,626 reporting
J Kawas Elem
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,755 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
91
A
—
School Progress
93
A
—
Closing the Gaps
93
A
—
Academic Growth
91
A
—
Relative Performance
93
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%. For this school that better measure is School Progress (93), so
Student Achievement (91) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 93.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level88%+22 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
Meets grade level68%+28 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
Masters grade level39%+23 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level86%+18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
Meets grade level74%+30 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
Masters grade level47%+30 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level89%+23 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,627 reporting
Meets grade level64%+25 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,627 reporting
Masters grade level35%+20 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,627 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level96%+33 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,538 reporting
Meets grade level63%+29 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,538 reporting
Masters grade level27%+13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,538 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,755 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
398
Economically disadvantaged
95.5%+3.1 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
48.5%+6.3 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
13.3%−4.2 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.4%+1.5 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
16.9%−6.5 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
J Kawas Elem
Hispanic 97.5%
White 2.5%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,755 reporting for every category shown · 1,755 in full cohort
African American 15%
Hispanic 77.3%
White 4.7%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 1.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 01: Edinburg · 505 reporting for every category shown · 505 in full cohort
African American 0.2%
Hispanic 97.5%
White 1.9%
Asian 0.3%
Two or More Races 0.1%
Selected comparison averageFor Webb County · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
African American 0.1%
Hispanic 98.3%
White 1.3%
Asian 0.2%
Two or More Races 0.1%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 3,979 reporting for every category shown · 3,979 in full cohort
African American 11.7%
Hispanic 54.8%
White 26.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 3.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.3%
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
398
Economically disadvantaged students
380
Emergent bilingual students
193
Special education students
53
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
48
Students in TEA mobility denominator
287
TEA-published mobility rate
16.7%
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 398 students in 2025–26, an increase of 35 (9.6%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
398
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+35
Increase · +9.6%
Change since 2021–22
+77
Increase · +24.0%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This school
398
Selected comparison
559.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,737 rated schools reporting
Student enrollment by school year for J Kawas Elem
School year
Students enrolledJ Kawas Elem
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
321
First available year
607.8
2022–23
385
Increase of 64 (19.9%)
604.1
2023–24
302
Decrease of 83 (21.6%)
594.2
2024–25
363
Increase of 61 (20.2%)
587.1
2025–26
398
Increase of 35 (9.6%)
559.8
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
386
2024–25
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for J Kawas Elem
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
456
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
2021–22
361
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
2022–23
400
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
2023–24
339
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2024–25
386
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for J Kawas Elem 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
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Out-of-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
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.
J Kawas Elem
Parent district: Laredo ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This school
$12,159
Selected comparison
$13,308
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,737 rated schools reporting
−$1,149 vs similar economic context
For 2025, TEA reported $12,159 per student for this campus, $17,272 per student for its parent district, Laredo 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
J Kawas Elem
Parent district: Laredo ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$7,552
$12,618
$13,054
$8,374
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,654 rated schools reporting
2019
$8,072
$12,937
$13,108
$8,375
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,677 rated schools reporting
2020
$8,663
$13,776
$14,058
$8,871
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,680 rated schools reporting
2021
$10,073
$15,445
$14,797
$9,724
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,682 rated schools reporting
2022
$31,071
$19,935
$15,708
$11,212
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,698 rated schools reporting
2023
$28,852
$18,022
$16,792
$11,878
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,718 rated schools reporting
2024
$26,291
$18,312
$18,125
$12,757
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,726 rated schools reporting
2025
$12,159
$17,272
$18,972
$13,308
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,737 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
$63,083−$5,446 vs similar economic context
Teachers
30−9.3 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
13.2−1.5 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
J Kawas Elem
Beginning 10%
1 to 5 years 16.6%
6 to 10 years 13.3%
11 to 20 years 39.9%
21 to 30 years 20.3%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,755 reporting for every category shown · 1,755 in full cohort
Beginning 7.7%
1 to 5 years 27%
6 to 10 years 18.6%
11 to 20 years 27%
21 to 30 years 14.9%
Over 30 years 3.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 01: Edinburg · 505 reporting for every category shown · 505 in full cohort
Beginning 2.7%
1 to 5 years 19.3%
6 to 10 years 16.2%
11 to 20 years 35%
21 to 30 years 22.6%
Over 30 years 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Webb County · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
Beginning 2.5%
1 to 5 years 18.4%
6 to 10 years 16%
11 to 20 years 32.7%
21 to 30 years 25.1%
Over 30 years 5.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 3,979 reporting for every category shown · 3,979 in full cohort
Beginning 6.1%
1 to 5 years 25.7%
6 to 10 years 19%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 16.4%
Over 30 years 3.5%
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 J Kawas Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subject
Average students per classJ Kawas Elem · 2024–25
Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten
22
18.1
Grade 1
21.3
18.3
Grade 2
23.2
18.3
Grade 3
16.1
18.4
Grade 4
21.3
18.3
Grade 5
14.2
19
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 105 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
1 measure
10of 76
Per-student spending
Webb County · of the 76 that report this measure
Other top-5% rankings
High placements in larger reporting groups
16 measures
12of 1,630
Reading — Masters
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,630 that report this measure
24of 1,630
All Subjects — Masters
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,630 that report this measure
26of 1,630
Reading — Meets
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,630 that report this measure · tied with 1
31of 1,618
Closing the Gaps
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,618 that report this measure · tied with 13
34of 1,630
All Subjects — Meets
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,630 that report this measure · tied with 3
34of 1,626
Relative Performance
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,626 that report this measure · tied with 13
34of 1,538
Science — Approaches
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,538 that report this measure · tied with 11
35of 1,630
All Subjects — Approaches
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,630 that report this measure · tied with 5
41of 1,630
Student Achievement
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,630 that report this measure · tied with 17
43of 1,627
Math — Masters
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,627 that report this measure · tied with 7
43of 1,605
Academic Growth
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,605 that report this measure · tied with 26
44of 1,755
Overall score
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,755 that report this measure · tied with 15
44of 1,627
School Progress
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,627 that report this measure · tied with 19
51of 1,630
Reading — Approaches
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,630 that report this measure · tied with 10
52of 1,627
Math — Approaches
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,627 that report this measure · tied with 6
61of 1,627
Math — Meets
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 1,627 that report this measure · tied with 9
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 240901122.