+4.5 ptsvs 77.5 average · 2,222 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
754 of 2,222tied with 92 others
Score vs region
+2.1 ptsvs 79.9 average · 519 rated schools in Region 13: Austin
Region 13: Austin placement
245 of 519tied with 12 others
Score vs county
+5.3 ptsvs 76.7 average · 15 rated schools in Caldwell County
Caldwell County placement
6 of 15tied with 1 other
Score vs similar-size group
+1.3 ptsvs 80.7 average · 4,228 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
2,016 of 4,228tied with 161 others
Score vs state
+0.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
3,846 of 7,646tied with 294 others
B82
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 76 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 77.5 average for 2,222 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 79.9 average for 519 rated schools in Region 13: Austin.The current score is above the 76.7 average for 15 rated schools in Caldwell County.The current score is above the 80.7 average for 4,228 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
53%vs 41.7% avg · +11.3 pts
Masters
27%vs 16.3% avg · +10.7 pts
Among 2,052 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
Leonard Shanklin Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 82 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 77.5 average for 2,222 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is up 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 754th of 2,222 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 92 others).
Leonard Shanklin Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 82 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 79.9 average for 519 rated schools in Region 13: Austin. It is up 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 245th of 519 rated schools in Region 13: Austin (tied with 12 others).
Leonard Shanklin Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 82 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 76.7 average for 15 rated schools in Caldwell County. It is up 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 6th of 15 rated schools in Caldwell County (tied with 1 other).
Leonard Shanklin Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 82 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.7 average for 4,228 similarly sized rated schools. It is up 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 2,016th of 4,228 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 161 others).
Leonard Shanklin Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 82 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is up 4 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 · 2,222 rated schools reporting
Schools on the PEG list
This school
Not listed
Selected comparison
7.1%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,222 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 C with 76 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 Achievement79 C+7.0 vs similar economic context · 2,052 reporting
School Progress87 B+8.2 vs similar economic context · 2,045 reporting
Closing the Gaps71 C−3.6 vs similar economic context · 2,031 reporting
Academic Growth73 C+0.7 vs similar economic context · 1,999 reporting
Relative Performance87 B+10.0 vs similar economic context · 2,045 reporting
Leonard Shanklin Elem
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,222 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
79
C
1
School Progress
87
B
3
Closing the Gaps
71
C
9
Academic Growth
73
C
7
Relative Performance
87
B
3
Closest to moving up: School Progress, 3 points below A 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 (87), so
Student Achievement (79) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 87.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level76%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,052 reporting
Meets grade level53%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,052 reporting
Masters grade level27%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,052 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level79%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,050 reporting
Meets grade level53%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,050 reporting
Masters grade level27%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,050 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level74%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,040 reporting
Meets grade level55%+17 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,040 reporting
Masters grade level29%+15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,040 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level72%+6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,897 reporting
Meets grade level45%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,897 reporting
Masters grade level23%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,897 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,222 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
718
Economically disadvantaged
81.5%−0.7 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
14.2%−16.7 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
19.4%+0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.5%+1.2 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
13.6%−7.4 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Leonard Shanklin Elem
African American 4.5%
Hispanic 69%
White 22.2%
Asian 0.3%
Pacific Islander 0.3%
Two or More Races 3.8%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,222 reporting for every category shown · 2,222 in full cohort
African American 14.2%
Hispanic 69.2%
White 12.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.6%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 2.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 13: Austin · 519 reporting for every category shown · 519 in full cohort
African American 6.8%
Hispanic 49.9%
White 31.9%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 6.7%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Caldwell County · 15 reporting for every category shown · 15 in full cohort
African American 3.2%
Hispanic 78.2%
White 16.1%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.1%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,228 reporting for every category shown · 4,228 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
712
Economically disadvantaged students
580
Emergent bilingual students
101
Special education students
138
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
62
Students in TEA mobility denominator
580
TEA-published mobility rate
10.7%
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 718 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 17 (2.3%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
718
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−17
Decrease · −2.3%
Change since 2021–22
+20
Increase · +2.9%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This school
718
Selected comparison
622.3
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,193 rated schools reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Leonard Shanklin Elem
School year
Students enrolledLeonard Shanklin Elem
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
698
First available year
649.9
2022–23
699
Increase of 1 (0.1%)
651.5
2023–24
711
Increase of 12 (1.7%)
645
2024–25
735
Increase of 24 (3.4%)
641.6
2025–26
718
Decrease of 17 (2.3%)
622.3
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
46
5.9% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
116
14.87 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
780
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This school
5.9%
Selected comparison
13.4%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,601 rated schools reporting
−7.5 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This school
14.87
Selected comparison
32.5
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,710 rated schools reporting
−17.6 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Leonard Shanklin 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
406
40
9.8%
82
20.20
8.3%
16.3
2021–22
746
59
7.9%
193
25.87
13.0%
31.1
2022–23
757
57
7.5%
83
10.96
13.8%
34.3
2023–24
780
18
2.3%
40
5.13
13.8%
34.2
2024–25
780
46
5.9%
116
14.87
13.4%
32.5
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Leonard Shanklin Elem in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
46
5.9%
116
14.87
13.4%
32.5
In-school suspensions
46
5.9%
106
13.59
11.8%
23.5
Out-of-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
10
1.28
—
13.4
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.
Leonard Shanklin Elem
Parent district: Luling ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This school
$7,016
Selected comparison
$13,149
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,205 rated schools reporting
−$6,133 vs similar economic context
For 2025, TEA reported $7,016 per student for this campus, $13,641 per student for its parent district, Luling 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
Leonard Shanklin Elem
Parent district: Luling ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$6,152
$9,426
$13,054
$8,204
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,086 rated schools reporting
2019
$6,380
$10,043
$13,108
$8,305
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,112 rated schools reporting
2020
$6,328
$16,479
$14,058
$8,806
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,127 rated schools reporting
2021
$7,001
$23,853
$14,797
$9,480
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,136 rated schools reporting
2022
$18,419
$19,215
$15,708
$10,919
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,153 rated schools reporting
2023
$7,439
$14,258
$16,792
$11,456
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,173 rated schools reporting
2024
$7,079
$13,483
$18,125
$12,424
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,189 rated schools reporting
2025
$7,016
$13,641
$18,972
$13,149
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,205 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
$60,919−$6,384 vs similar economic context
Teachers
49+5.8 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
14.7+0.4 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Leonard Shanklin Elem
Beginning 16.5%
1 to 5 years 36.9%
6 to 10 years 18.4%
11 to 20 years 10.5%
21 to 30 years 15.9%
Over 30 years 2.1%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,222 reporting for every category shown · 2,222 in full cohort
Beginning 6.9%
1 to 5 years 27.7%
6 to 10 years 19%
11 to 20 years 27%
21 to 30 years 15.1%
Over 30 years 3.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 13: Austin · 519 reporting for every category shown · 519 in full cohort
Beginning 5.9%
1 to 5 years 28%
6 to 10 years 19.4%
11 to 20 years 28.3%
21 to 30 years 14.4%
Over 30 years 3.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Caldwell County · 15 reporting for every category shown · 15 in full cohort
Beginning 10.1%
1 to 5 years 32.5%
6 to 10 years 17.4%
11 to 20 years 24.4%
21 to 30 years 10%
Over 30 years 5.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,228 reporting for every category shown · 4,228 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%
Average students in a class
TEA average class size by grade or subject for Leonard Shanklin Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subject
Average students per classLeonard Shanklin Elem · 2024–25
Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten
20.3
18
Grade 1
19.7
18.4
Grade 2
21.2
18.4
Grade 3
20.5
18.9
Grade 4
20.8
18.9
Grade 5
23.3
20
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.
#1 rankings
First-place results
4 measures
1of 14
Relative Performance
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
1of 14
All Subjects — Masters
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
1of 14
Math — Meets
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
1of 14
Math — Masters
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
7 measures
2of 14
Student Achievement
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 14
All Subjects — Approaches
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 14
All Subjects — Meets
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
2of 14
Math — Approaches
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 2
2of 12
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Caldwell County · of the 12 that report this measure
3of 14
Reading — Approaches
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
3of 12
Attendance
Caldwell County · of the 12 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
9 measures
4of 14
School Progress
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
4of 14
Reading — Meets
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
4of 14
Reading — Masters
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
4of 14
Science — Masters
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
5of 14
Science — Meets
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 1
6of 15
Overall score
Caldwell County · of the 15 that report this measure · tied with 1
6of 14
Science — Approaches
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure
7of 14
Academic Growth
Caldwell County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 2
8of 14
Closing the Gaps
Caldwell County · of the 14 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 028903101.