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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Traditional public school campus

Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem

Bowie County · Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 328 students

Official school websiteSchool information and family resources

Current score
97/1002025-26
Change
±0 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+11.9 ptsvs 85.1 average · 1,270 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
17 of 1,270tied with 11 others
A97

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is flat; under the rules in force back then it scored 99 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 85.1 average for 1,270 rated schools serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Recent domain gain

Relative Performance rose 2 points

95 to 97 2024-25 to 2025-26

  • 97 is 17.3 points above the 79.7 average among 1,231 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measure

STAAR result

Math above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters

Meets
99%vs 53.5% avg · +45.5 pts
Masters
78%vs 23.5% avg · +54.5 pts

Among 1,230 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.

  • Tied for 2nd of 1,230 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure; 2 schools share that value.
  • 2nd of 1,230 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measure

STAAR result

All Subjects above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters

Meets
96%vs 59.7% avg · +36.3 pts
Masters
74%vs 28.2% avg · +45.8 pts

Among 1,235 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.

See the full measure

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

Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem is rated A by TEA, scoring 97 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 85.1 average for 1,270 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is unchanged since 2021-22.

Ranks 17th of 1,270 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 11 others).

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

Jump to a section
  1. Overview
  2. 5 years of ratings
  3. Where the score comes from
  4. Student outcomes
  5. Who this school serves
  6. Student counts behind the percentages
  7. Enrollment over time
  8. Discipline and removal from class
  9. Spending per student
  10. Teachers and actual class size
  11. Where this school ranks best
  12. Where this comes from

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
908070 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageMartha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem 9792969697 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 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.

View the yearly scores and comparisons
Rating history with comparisons
YearRatingScoreSelected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rateStateTexas average
2025-26A9785.1 1,270 reporting81.3 7,646 reporting
2024-25A9685.2 1,244 reporting81.2 7,554 reporting
2023-24A9683.6 1,226 reporting78.9 7,466 reporting
2022-23A9284.1 1,212 reporting79.1 7,377 reporting
2021-22A9785.9 1,195 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 Achievement98 A+12.3 vs similar economic context · 1,235 reporting
  • School Progress97 A+14.0 vs similar economic context · 1,231 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps93 A+10.5 vs similar economic context · 1,222 reporting
  • Academic Growth95 A+16.4 vs similar economic context · 1,210 reporting
  • Relative Performance97 A+17.3 vs similar economic context · 1,231 reporting
  • Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,270 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement98A—
School Progress97A—
Closing the Gaps93A—
Academic Growth95A—
Relative Performance97A—

TEA does not add the domains up. The overall score is the better of Student Achievement and School Progress at 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. For this school that better measure is Student Achievement (98), so School Progress (97) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 98.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level100%+18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,235 reporting
  • Meets grade level96%+36 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,235 reporting
  • Masters grade level74%+46 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,235 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level99%+16 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,234 reporting
  • Meets grade level93%+29 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,234 reporting
  • Masters grade level70%+40 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,234 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level100%+20 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,230 reporting
  • Meets grade level99%+46 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,230 reporting
  • Masters grade level78%+55 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,230 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level100%+17 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,131 reporting
  • Meets grade level98%+39 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,131 reporting
  • Masters grade level75%+45 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,131 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,270 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
328
Economically disadvantaged
37.5%−0.9 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
2.4%−8.6 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
4.0%−13.9 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
96.9%+1.9 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
1.7%−10.4 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem

African American: 21.6%Hispanic: 8.8%White: 54%American Indian: 1.2%Asian: 6.1%Pacific Islander: 0.3%Two or More Races: 7.9%
  • African American 21.6%
  • Hispanic 8.8%
  • White 54%
  • American Indian 1.2%
  • Asian 6.1%
  • Pacific Islander 0.3%
  • Two or More Races 7.9%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,270 reporting for every category shown · 1,270 in full cohort

African American: 9.2%Hispanic: 33.8%White: 46.7%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 5.2%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 4.6%
  • African American 9.2%
  • Hispanic 33.8%
  • White 46.7%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 5.2%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 4.6%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
328
Economically disadvantaged students
123
Emergent bilingual students
8
Special education students
13

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students
15
Students in TEA mobility denominator
290
TEA-published mobility rate
5.2%

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 328 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 23 (6.6%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
328

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
−23

Decrease · −6.6%

Change since 2021–22
−14

Decrease · −4.1%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This school
328
Selected comparison
725

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,242 rated schools reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem
School yearStudents enrolledMartha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering ElemChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 342 First available year 733.4
2022–23 358 Increase of 16 (4.7%) 734.8
2023–24 360 Increase of 2 (0.6%) 735.7
2024–25 351 Decrease of 9 (2.5%) 732.4
2025–26 328 Decrease of 23 (6.6%) 725

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
18

5.1% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
24

6.80 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
353

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This school
5.1%
Selected comparison
10.4%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 982 rated schools reporting

−5.3 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This school
6.8
Selected comparison
22.4

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,065 rated schools reporting

−15.6 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 336 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2021–22 338 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2022–23 350 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2023–24 361 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2024–25 353 18 5.1% 24 6.80 10.4% 22.4
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 18 5.1% 24 6.80 10.4% 22.4
In-school suspensions 15 4.3% 19 5.38 9.3% 17.2
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.

$5k$20k$34k20182020202220242025
  • Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem
  • Parent district: Texarkana ISD
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This school
$8,501
Selected comparison
$11,894

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,245 rated schools reporting

−$3,393 vs similar economic context

For 2025, TEA reported $8,501 per student for this campus, $32,607 per student for its parent district, Texarkana 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
YearMartha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering ElemParent district: Texarkana ISDTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$5,342$11,321$13,054$7,717 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,138 rated schools reporting
2019$5,645$11,880$13,108$7,854 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,154 rated schools reporting
2020$6,752$11,720$14,058$8,196 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,159 rated schools reporting
2021$7,272$12,558$14,797$8,671 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,177 rated schools reporting
2022$8,254$14,786$15,708$9,847 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,195 rated schools reporting
2023$7,966$17,217$16,792$10,396 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,212 rated schools reporting
2024$8,005$21,801$18,125$11,618 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,227 rated schools reporting
2025$8,501$32,607$18,972$11,894 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,245 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
$56,836−$10,788 vs similar economic context
Teachers
22−26.4 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
15.3+1.1 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem

Beginning: 21.9%1 to 5 years: 20.9%6 to 10 years: 4.7%11 to 20 years: 29.3%21 to 30 years: 23.3%
  • Beginning 21.9%
  • 1 to 5 years 20.9%
  • 6 to 10 years 4.7%
  • 11 to 20 years 29.3%
  • 21 to 30 years 23.3%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,270 reporting for every category shown · 1,270 in full cohort

Beginning: 5.2%1 to 5 years: 23.1%6 to 10 years: 19.5%11 to 20 years: 31.3%21 to 30 years: 17.1%Over 30 years: 3.6%
  • Beginning 5.2%
  • 1 to 5 years 23.1%
  • 6 to 10 years 19.5%
  • 11 to 20 years 31.3%
  • 21 to 30 years 17.1%
  • Over 30 years 3.6%

Average students in a class

TEA average class size by grade or subject for Martha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subjectAverage students per classMartha & Josh Morriss Math & Engineering Elem · 2024–25Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten2218.3
Grade 123.618.8
Grade 219.719.1
Grade 318.819.8
Grade 416.319.4
Grade 516.720.9

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 school ranks best

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

17 measures

  • 1of 7,260

    All Subjects — Approaches

    Texas average · of the 7,260 that report this measure · tied with 24

  • 1of 7,227

    Math — Approaches

    Texas average · of the 7,227 that report this measure · tied with 37

  • 1of 2,882

    Math — Meets

    Similar size · of the 2,882 that report this measure

  • 1of 142

    Overall score

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 142 that report this measure

  • 1of 129

    Student Achievement

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure

  • 1of 129

    All Subjects — Meets

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure

  • 1of 129

    All Subjects — Masters

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure

  • 1of 129

    Reading — Approaches

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure

  • 1of 129

    Reading — Meets

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure

  • 1of 129

    Reading — Masters

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure

  • 1of 128

    School Progress

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 128 that report this measure

  • 1of 128

    Relative Performance

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 128 that report this measure

  • 1of 128

    Math — Masters

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 128 that report this measure

  • 1of 123

    Academic Growth

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 123 that report this measure

  • 1of 110

    Science — Meets

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 110 that report this measure

  • 1of 110

    Science — Masters

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 110 that report this measure

  • 1of 33

    Science — Approaches

    Bowie County · of the 33 that report this measure · tied with 2

#2–3 rankings

Second- and third-place results

2 measures

  • 2of 134

    Attendance

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 134 that report this measure

  • 3of 134

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 134 that report this measure

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

1 measure

  • 4of 37

    Closing the Gaps

    Bowie County · of the 37 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.

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 019907116.