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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Traditional public school campus

Red Lick Elem

Bowie County · Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 286 students

Official school websiteSchool information and family resources

Current score
88/1002025-26
Change
−4 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−3.6 ptsvs 91.6 average · 477 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
402 of 477tied with 20 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 89 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 91.6 average for 477 rated schools serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Current strength

Chronically absent lower than the similar-context average

3.8% −2.6 pts vs 6.4%

  • 3.8% is 2.6 percentage points lower than the 6.4% average among 464 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

Red Lick Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 91.6 average for 477 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 4 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 402nd of 477 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 20 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 averageRed Lick Elem 9292849488 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 B with 89 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
2025-26B8891.6 477 reporting81.3 7,646 reporting
2024-25A9492.0 468 reporting81.2 7,554 reporting
2023-24B8491.1 456 reporting78.9 7,466 reporting
2022-23A9291.5 444 reporting79.1 7,377 reporting
2021-22A9292.1 434 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 Achievement93 A+0.3 vs similar economic context · 469 reporting
  • School Progress77 C−10.9 vs similar economic context · 467 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps76 C−13.2 vs similar economic context · 464 reporting
  • Academic Growth74 C−12.4 vs similar economic context · 464 reporting
  • Relative Performance77 C−1.4 vs similar economic context · 467 reporting
  • Red Lick Elem
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (477 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement93A—
School Progress77C3
Closing the Gaps76C4
Academic Growth74C6
Relative Performance77C3

Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 4 points below B 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 (93), so School Progress (77) 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 level96%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 469 reporting
  • Meets grade level78%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 469 reporting
  • Masters grade level38%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 469 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level97%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 469 reporting
  • Meets grade level82%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 469 reporting
  • Masters grade level43%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 469 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level95%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 467 reporting
  • Meets grade level74%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 467 reporting
  • Masters grade level33%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 467 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (477 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
286
Economically disadvantaged
7.4%−2.5 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
0.4%−10.4 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
15.1%−0.2 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
96.3%+0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
3.8%−2.6 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Red Lick Elem

African American: 1.8%Hispanic: 5.3%White: 87.7%American Indian: 1.1%Two or More Races: 4.2%
  • African American 1.8%
  • Hispanic 5.3%
  • White 87.7%
  • American Indian 1.1%
  • Two or More Races 4.2%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 477 reporting for every category shown · 477 in full cohort

African American: 5%Hispanic: 17.6%White: 48.5%American Indian: 0.5%Asian: 22.7%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 5.7%
  • African American 5%
  • Hispanic 17.6%
  • White 48.5%
  • American Indian 0.5%
  • Asian 22.7%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 5.7%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
285
Economically disadvantaged students
21
Emergent bilingual students
1
Special education students
43

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students
8
Students in TEA mobility denominator
236
TEA-published mobility rate
3.4%

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 286 students in 2025–26, an increase of 16 (5.9%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
286

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
+16

Increase · +5.9%

Change since 2021–22
−23

Decrease · −7.4%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This school
286
Selected comparison
874.2

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 472 rated schools reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Red Lick Elem
School yearStudents enrolledRed Lick ElemChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 309 First available year 883.2
2022–23 306 Decrease of 3 (1.0%) 901.2
2023–24 297 Decrease of 9 (2.9%) 892.6
2024–25 270 Decrease of 27 (9.1%) 885.2
2025–26 286 Increase of 16 (5.9%) 874.2

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
Suppressed

Rate not available

Disciplinary actions
Suppressed

Rate not available

Cumulative year-end enrollment
277

2024–25

TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Red Lick Elem
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 322 10 3.1% 16 4.97 3.3% 5.2
2021–22 328 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2022–23 324 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2023–24 306 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
2024–25 277 Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Red Lick Elem in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected 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.

$6k$13k$20k20182020202220242025
  • Red Lick Elem
  • Parent district: Red Lick ISD
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This school
$11,957
Selected comparison
$10,747

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 467 rated schools reporting

+$1,210 vs similar economic context

For 2025, TEA reported $11,957 per student for this campus, $14,856 per student for its parent district, Red Lick 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
YearRed Lick ElemParent district: Red Lick ISDTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$7,079$10,093$13,054$7,207 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 395 rated schools reporting
2019$7,844$10,651$13,108$7,314 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 406 rated schools reporting
2020$8,163$10,264$14,058$7,631 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 416 rated schools reporting
2021$8,110$10,857$14,797$8,223 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 426 rated schools reporting
2022$8,637$11,668$15,708$9,421 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 435 rated schools reporting
2023$9,681$13,137$16,792$9,483 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 443 rated schools reporting
2024$10,350$14,924$18,125$10,102 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 456 rated schools reporting
2025$11,957$14,856$18,972$10,747 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 467 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
$63,010−$6,458 vs similar economic context
Teachers
27−29.3 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
10.6−4.2 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Red Lick Elem

1 to 5 years: 7.4%6 to 10 years: 14.8%11 to 20 years: 48.1%21 to 30 years: 22.2%Over 30 years: 7.4%
  • 1 to 5 years 7.4%
  • 6 to 10 years 14.8%
  • 11 to 20 years 48.1%
  • 21 to 30 years 22.2%
  • Over 30 years 7.4%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 477 reporting for every category shown · 477 in full cohort

Beginning: 4.3%1 to 5 years: 23.8%6 to 10 years: 20.1%11 to 20 years: 31.6%21 to 30 years: 16.9%Over 30 years: 2.5%
  • Beginning 4.3%
  • 1 to 5 years 23.8%
  • 6 to 10 years 20.1%
  • 11 to 20 years 31.6%
  • 21 to 30 years 16.9%
  • Over 30 years 2.5%

Average students in a class

TEA average class size by grade or subject for Red Lick Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subjectAverage students per classRed Lick Elem · 2024–25Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten12.719
Grade 113.819.2
Grade 216.219.7
Grade 315.521.6
Grade 41320.4

These are TEA's actual class-size averages for the grade or subject shown, not the student-to-teacher ratio. TEA reported 5 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 90 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.

#2–3 rankings

Second- and third-place results

7 measures

  • 2of 129

    All Subjects — Approaches

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

  • 2of 129

    All Subjects — Meets

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

  • 2of 129

    Reading — Approaches

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

  • 2of 38

    Math — Meets

    Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure

  • 2of 38

    Math — Masters

    Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure · tied with 2

  • 3of 129

    Reading — Meets

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 3of 38

    Math — Approaches

    Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure · tied with 1

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

5 measures

  • 4of 134

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

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

  • 4of 129

    All Subjects — Masters

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

  • 4of 129

    Reading — Masters

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

  • 4of 38

    Student Achievement

    Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure

  • 6of 134

    Attendance

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 134 that report this measure · tied with 2

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 019911101.