Ralph and Mary Lynn Boyer Elem

5 years of ratings

Follow the solid line to see how this school has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.

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.

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 Achievement93 A+0.4 vs similar economic context · 490 reporting
• School Progress92 A+4.2 vs similar economic context · 488 reporting
• Closing the Gaps92 A+2.9 vs similar economic context · 485 reporting
• Academic Growth92 A+5.7 vs similar economic context · 485 reporting
• Relative Performance75 C−3.5 vs similar economic context · 488 reporting

• Ralph and Mary Lynn Boyer Elem
• Similar economic-disadvantage rate (498 in cohort)

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 (93), so School Progress (92) 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

• Approaches grade level
• Meets grade level
• Masters grade level
• Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (498 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

839

Economically disadvantaged

7.9%−2.4 pts vs similar economic context

English learners

19.1%+8.4 pts vs similar economic context

Special education

17.8%+2.4 pts vs similar economic context

Attendance

95.7%−0.2 pts vs similar economic context

Chronically absent

4.9%−1.6 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Ralph and Mary Lynn Boyer Elem

• African American 9.2%
• Hispanic 8.4%
• White 35%
• American Indian 1.6%
• Asian 41.1%
• Two or More Races 4.7%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary

836

Economically disadvantaged students

66

Emergent bilingual students

160

Special education students

149

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students

138

Students in TEA mobility denominator

911

TEA-published mobility rate

15.1%

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 839 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 135 (13.9%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment

839

2025–26

Change from 2024–25

−135

Decrease · −13.9%

Change since 2021–22

−18

Decrease · −2.1%

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

17

1.6% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions

40

3.69 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment

1,084

2024–25

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.

• Ralph and Mary Lynn Boyer Elem
• Parent district: Prosper ISD
• Texas average
• Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

For 2025, TEA reported $7,471 per student for this campus, $33,711 per student for its parent district, Prosper ISD, $18,972 per student for the Texas average.

Not reported in this TEA campus finance record: TEA peer group.

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

$68,908−$546 vs similar economic context

Teachers

61+4.9 vs similar economic context

Students per staff member

13.7−1.1 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Ralph and Mary Lynn Boyer Elem

• Beginning 14.3%
• 1 to 5 years 18%
• 6 to 10 years 19.7%
• 11 to 20 years 38%
• 21 to 30 years 9.2%
• Over 30 years 0.8%

Average students in a class

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.

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 043912108.