Districts, charter school systems & campuses · Source: Texas Education Agency
Mt Valley ElemB88vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Traditional public school campus
Mt Valley Elem
Comal County · Region 20: San Antonio · 504 students
Current score
88/1002025-26
Change
−4 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+6.1 ptsvs 81.9 average · 1,721 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
430 of 1,721tied with 66 others
Score vs region
+9.4 ptsvs 78.6 average · 650 rated schools in Region 20: San Antonio
Region 20: San Antonio placement
131 of 650tied with 13 others
Score vs county
+1.2 ptsvs 86.8 average · 53 rated schools in Comal County
Comal County placement
26 of 53tied with 6 others
Score vs similar-size group
+7.9 ptsvs 80.1 average · 4,709 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
1,163 of 4,709tied with 138 others
Score vs state
+6.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
2,199 of 7,646tied with 256 others
B88
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 93 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 81.9 average for 1,721 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 78.6 average for 650 rated schools in Region 20: San Antonio.The current score is above the 86.8 average for 53 rated schools in Comal County.The current score is above the 80.1 average for 4,709 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
63%vs 52.9% avg · +10.1 pts
Masters
34%vs 23% avg · +11 pts
Among 1,657 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
Mt Valley Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.9 average for 1,721 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 430th of 1,721 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 66 others).
Mt Valley Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 78.6 average for 650 rated schools in Region 20: San Antonio. It is down 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 131st of 650 rated schools in Region 20: San Antonio (tied with 13 others).
Mt Valley Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 86.8 average for 53 rated schools in Comal County. It is down 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 26th of 53 rated schools in Comal County (tied with 6 others).
Mt Valley Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.1 average for 4,709 similarly sized rated schools. It is down 4 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 1,163rd of 4,709 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 138 others).
Mt Valley Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is down 4 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 93 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 Achievement90 A+8.5 vs similar economic context · 1,657 reporting
School Progress87 B+5.5 vs similar economic context · 1,652 reporting
Closing the Gaps83 B+3.8 vs similar economic context · 1,637 reporting
Academic Growth82 B+6.3 vs similar economic context · 1,616 reporting
Relative Performance87 B+7.7 vs similar economic context · 1,652 reporting
Mt Valley Elem
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,721 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
90
A
—
School Progress
87
B
3
Closing the Gaps
83
B
7
Academic Growth
82
B
8
Relative Performance
87
B
3
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 7 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 Student Achievement (90), so
School Progress (87) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 90.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level84%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,657 reporting
Meets grade level63%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,657 reporting
Masters grade level34%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,657 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level88%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,655 reporting
Meets grade level70%+12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,655 reporting
Masters grade level43%+18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,655 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level80%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,649 reporting
Meets grade level61%+14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,649 reporting
Masters grade level29%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,649 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level84%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,529 reporting
Meets grade level51%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,529 reporting
Masters grade level26%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,529 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,721 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
504
Economically disadvantaged
50.6%−0.5 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
4.2%−9.0 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
30.2%+11.4 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.2%−0.3 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
14.1%−0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Mt Valley Elem
African American 1.6%
Hispanic 25.6%
White 69.2%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 2.4%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,721 reporting for every category shown · 1,721 in full cohort
African American 9.5%
Hispanic 41.2%
White 41.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 3%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 20: San Antonio · 650 reporting for every category shown · 650 in full cohort
African American 5.2%
Hispanic 70.7%
White 19.2%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 1.7%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.9%
Selected comparison averageFor Comal County · 53 reporting for every category shown · 53 in full cohort
African American 2.8%
Hispanic 43.7%
White 47.2%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 1.6%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.3%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,709 reporting for every category shown · 4,709 in full cohort
African American 12.1%
Hispanic 55%
White 24.9%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 4.1%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.5%
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
500
Economically disadvantaged students
253
Emergent bilingual students
21
Special education students
151
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
67
Students in TEA mobility denominator
436
TEA-published mobility rate
15.4%
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 504 students in 2025–26, an increase of 16 (3.3%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
504
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+16
Increase · +3.3%
Change since 2021–22
+49
Increase · +10.8%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This school
504
Selected comparison
648.4
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,681 rated schools reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Mt Valley Elem
School year
Students enrolledMt Valley Elem
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
455
First available year
652.7
2022–23
471
Increase of 16 (3.5%)
657.4
2023–24
477
Increase of 6 (1.3%)
656.8
2024–25
488
Increase of 11 (2.3%)
652.4
2025–26
504
Increase of 16 (3.3%)
648.4
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
31
5.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
56
10.37 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
540
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This school
5.7%
Selected comparison
12.2%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,331 rated schools reporting
−6.5 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This school
10.37
Selected comparison
27.3
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,428 rated schools reporting
−16.9 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Mt Valley 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
482
35
7.3%
67
13.90
9.6%
18.5
2021–22
489
40
8.2%
74
15.13
12.0%
26.6
2022–23
524
43
8.2%
69
13.17
12.5%
28.6
2023–24
522
26
5.0%
33
6.32
12.5%
29
2024–25
540
31
5.7%
56
10.37
12.2%
27.3
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Mt Valley Elem in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
31
5.7%
56
10.37
12.2%
27.3
In-school suspensions
31
5.7%
56
10.37
11.0%
21.1
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.
Mt Valley Elem
Parent district: Comal ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This school
$11,392
Selected comparison
$12,040
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,694 rated schools reporting
−$648 vs similar economic context
For 2025, TEA reported $11,392 per student for this campus, $20,119 per student for its parent district, Comal 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
Mt Valley Elem
Parent district: Comal ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$9,261
$14,916
$13,054
$7,828
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,571 rated schools reporting
2019
$8,995
$14,099
$13,108
$8,005
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,589 rated schools reporting
2020
$9,506
$16,438
$14,058
$8,537
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,601 rated schools reporting
2021
$11,087
$14,988
$14,797
$8,949
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,617 rated schools reporting
2022
$10,695
$14,178
$15,708
$10,240
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,627 rated schools reporting
2023
$15,288
$18,425
$16,792
$10,710
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,647 rated schools reporting
2024
$15,338
$18,904
$18,125
$11,560
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,669 rated schools reporting
2025
$11,392
$20,119
$18,972
$12,040
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,694 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
$65,065−$1,764 vs similar economic context
Teachers
38−4.2 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
13−6.8 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Mt Valley Elem
Beginning 2.6%
1 to 5 years 20.8%
6 to 10 years 22.9%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 20.8%
Over 30 years 3.9%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,721 reporting for every category shown · 1,721 in full cohort
Beginning 5.6%
1 to 5 years 24.4%
6 to 10 years 19.3%
11 to 20 years 29.3%
21 to 30 years 16.7%
Over 30 years 4.3%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 20: San Antonio · 650 reporting for every category shown · 650 in full cohort
Beginning 4.5%
1 to 5 years 23.5%
6 to 10 years 19.8%
11 to 20 years 31.3%
21 to 30 years 17%
Over 30 years 2.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Comal County · 53 reporting for every category shown · 53 in full cohort
Beginning 4.1%
1 to 5 years 22.8%
6 to 10 years 21.4%
11 to 20 years 32.8%
21 to 30 years 15.7%
Over 30 years 1.4%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,709 reporting for every category shown · 4,709 in full cohort
Beginning 6.1%
1 to 5 years 26.2%
6 to 10 years 19.5%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 15.8%
Over 30 years 3.2%
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 Mt Valley Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subject
Average students per classMt Valley Elem · 2024–25
Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten
21.4
18
Grade 1
22.2
18.4
Grade 2
19
18.5
Grade 3
21.1
19
Grade 4
20.8
19.1
Grade 5
20.4
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.
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
1 measure
10of 52
Relative Performance
Comal County · of the 52 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 046902120.