Recent movement
Overall score rose 2 points
90 to 92 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureTraditional public school campus
Red Lick MS
Bowie County · Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 230 students
Official school websiteSchool information and family resources
- Current score
- 92/1002025-26
- Change
- ±0 ptssince 2021-22
- Score vs similar economic context
- +0.5 ptsvs 91.5 average · 513 rated schools serving a similar economic context
- Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
- 240 of 513tied with 57 others
- Score vs region
- +10.5 ptsvs 81.5 average · 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant
- Region 08: Mt Pleasant placement
- 15 of 142tied with 5 others
- Score vs county
- +11.3 ptsvs 80.7 average · 42 rated schools in Bowie County
- Bowie County placement
- 6 of 42tied with 1 other
- Score vs similar-size group
- +11.1 ptsvs 80.9 average · 1,674 similarly sized rated schools
- Similar size placement
- 203 of 1,674tied with 55 others
- Score vs state
- +10.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
- Texas placement
- 838 of 7,646tied with 318 others
A92
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is flat; under the rules in force back then it scored 94 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 91.5 average for 513 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 81.5 average for 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant.The current score is above the 80.7 average for 42 rated schools in Bowie County.The current score is above the 80.9 average for 1,674 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
Recent domain gain
Relative Performance rose 13 points
59 to 72 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureSTAAR result
Reading above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 86%vs 80.4% avg · +5.6 pts
- Masters
- 61%vs 49.5% avg · +11.5 pts
Among 504 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measureRecent movement
Overall score rose 2 points
90 to 92 2024-25 to 2025-26
- 92 is 10.5 points above the 81.5 average among 142 schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
Recent domain gain
Relative Performance rose 13 points
59 to 72 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureSTAAR result
All Subjects above Region 08: Mt Pleasant averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 74%vs 50.6% avg · +23.4 pts
- Masters
- 41%vs 19.3% avg · +21.7 pts
Among 129 schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
- 2nd of 129 schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
Recent movement
Overall score rose 2 points
90 to 92 2024-25 to 2025-26
- 92 is 11.3 points above the 80.7 average among 42 schools in Bowie County reporting this measure.
Recent domain gain
Relative Performance rose 13 points
59 to 72 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureTop placement
Social Studies — Masters
39% 2nd of 21 schools in Bowie County reporting this measure · 2025-26
See the full measureRecent movement
Overall score rose 2 points
90 to 92 2024-25 to 2025-26
- 92 is 11.1 points above the 80.9 average among 1,674 similarly sized schools reporting this measure.
Recent domain gain
Relative Performance rose 13 points
59 to 72 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureSTAAR result
All Subjects above similar-size averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 74%vs 49.3% avg · +24.7 pts
- Masters
- 41%vs 19.8% avg · +21.2 pts
Among 1,493 similarly sized schools reporting this measure.
See the full measureRecent movement
Overall score rose 2 points
90 to 92 2024-25 to 2025-26
- 92 is 10.7 points above the 81.3 average among 7,646 Texas schools reporting this measure.
Recent domain gain
Relative Performance rose 13 points
59 to 72 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureSTAAR result
All Subjects above Texas averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 74%vs 50.8% avg · +23.2 pts
- Masters
- 41%vs 22.8% avg · +18.2 pts
Among 7,260 Texas schools reporting this measure.
See the full measureSelected 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 MS is rated A by TEA, scoring 92 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 91.5 average for 513 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 240th of 513 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 57 others).
Red Lick MS is rated A by TEA, scoring 92 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.5 average for 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 15th of 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant (tied with 5 others).
Red Lick MS is rated A by TEA, scoring 92 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.7 average for 42 rated schools in Bowie County. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 6th of 42 rated schools in Bowie County (tied with 1 other).
Red Lick MS is rated A by TEA, scoring 92 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.9 average for 1,674 similarly sized rated schools. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 203rd of 1,674 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 55 others).
Red Lick MS is rated A by TEA, scoring 92 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 838th of 7,646 rated Texas schools (tied with 318 others).
Put the numbers in context
Compare with
Jump to a section
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 A with 94 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
| Year | Rating | Score | Selected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rate | StateTexas average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | A | 92 | 91.5 513 reporting | 81.3 7,646 reporting |
| 2024-25 | A | 90 | 91.9 502 reporting | 81.2 7,554 reporting |
| 2023-24 | B | 88 | 91.1 488 reporting | 78.9 7,466 reporting |
| 2022-23 | B | 86 | 91.5 476 reporting | 79.1 7,377 reporting |
| 2021-22 | A | 92 | 92.1 466 reporting | 83.7 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.
- Red Lick MS
- Similar economic-disadvantage rate (513 in cohort)
| Domain | Score | Grade | Points to next grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Achievement | 92 | A | — |
| School Progress | 87 | B | 3 |
| Closing the Gaps | 92 | A | — |
| Academic Growth | 87 | B | 3 |
| Relative Performance | 72 | C | 8 |
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 (92), so School Progress (87) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 92.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
- Approaches grade level
- Meets grade level
- Masters grade level
- Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (513 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
- 230
- Economically disadvantaged
- 8.3%−2.2 pts vs similar economic context
- English learners
- 0.4%−10.3 pts vs similar economic context
- Special education
- 9.6%−5.8 pts vs similar economic context
- Attendance
- 96.1%+0.2 pts vs similar economic context
- Chronically absent
- 4.6%−1.9 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Red Lick MS
- African American 2.2%
- Hispanic 6.5%
- White 85.7%
- American Indian 0.4%
- Two or More Races 5.2%
Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 513 reporting for every category shown · 513 in full cohort
- African American 5%
- Hispanic 18%
- White 48.7%
- American Indian 0.5%
- Asian 22%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 5.7%
Selected comparison average For Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 142 reporting for every category shown · 142 in full cohort
- African American 16.3%
- Hispanic 21.3%
- White 54.6%
- American Indian 0.5%
- Asian 0.7%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 6.5%
Selected comparison average For Bowie County · 42 reporting for every category shown · 42 in full cohort
- African American 24.2%
- Hispanic 11.4%
- White 55.7%
- American Indian 0.4%
- Asian 0.9%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 7.3%
Selected comparison average For similarly sized schools · 1,674 reporting for every category shown · 1,674 in full cohort
- African American 9.2%
- Hispanic 49.4%
- White 36.5%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 1.3%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 3.1%
Statewide average 7,646 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
- 230
- Economically disadvantaged students
- 19
- Emergent bilingual students
- 1
- Special education students
- 22
Campus mobility · 2024–25
- Mobile students
- 18
- Students in TEA mobility denominator
- 244
- TEA-published mobility rate
- 7.4%
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 230 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 4 (1.7%) from 2024–25.
- Latest enrollment
- 230
2025–26
- Change from 2024–25
- −4
Decrease · −1.7%
- Change since 2021–22
- +38
Increase · +19.8%
Enrollment in 2025–26
- This school
- 230
- Selected comparison
- 864.3
| School year | Students enrolledRed Lick MS | Change from previous school year | Average enrollmentselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 192 | First available year | 873.2 |
| 2022–23 | 221 | Increase of 29 (15.1%) | 893.4 |
| 2023–24 | 222 | Increase of 1 (0.5%) | 883.7 |
| 2024–25 | 234 | Increase of 12 (5.4%) | 874.9 |
| 2025–26 | 230 | Decrease of 4 (1.7%) | 864.3 |
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.
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
- 16
6.6% of cumulative year-end enrollment
- Disciplinary actions
- 20
8.20 per 100 students
- Cumulative year-end enrollment
- 244
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
- This school
- 6.6%
- Selected comparison
- 4.8%
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
- This school
- 8.2
- Selected comparison
- 8.1
| School year | Cumulative enrollment | Studentsall discipline | Students% of enrollment | Actionsall discipline | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 218 | 17 | 7.8% | 35 | 16.06 | 3.4% | 5.2 |
| 2021–22 | 204 | 28 | 13.7% | 46 | 22.55 | 4.7% | 8 |
| 2022–23 | 236 | 17 | 7.2% | 25 | 10.59 | 4.9% | 8.1 |
| 2023–24 | 229 | 13 | 5.7% | 20 | 8.73 | 4.8% | 8.1 |
| 2024–25 | 244 | 16 | 6.6% | 20 | 8.20 | 4.8% | 8.1 |
See 2024–25 discipline categories
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | 16 | 6.6% | 20 | 8.20 | 4.8% | 8.1 |
| In-school suspensions | 15 | 6.2% | 18 | 7.38 | 4.5% | 6.5 |
| Out-of-school suspensions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| DAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| Mandatory DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary DAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| 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.
- Red Lick MS
- Parent district: Red Lick ISD
- Texas average
- Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
- This school
- $15,959
- Selected comparison
- $10,812
For 2025, TEA reported $15,959 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
| Year | Red Lick MS | Parent district: Red Lick ISD | Texas average | Selected comparison average | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $8,113 | $10,093 | $13,054 | $7,227 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 426 rated schools reporting |
| 2019 | $9,153 | $10,651 | $13,108 | $7,309 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 437 rated schools reporting |
| 2020 | $9,633 | $10,264 | $14,058 | $7,615 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 447 rated schools reporting |
| 2021 | $10,369 | $10,857 | $14,797 | $8,288 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 458 rated schools reporting |
| 2022 | $13,345 | $11,668 | $15,708 | $9,469 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 467 rated schools reporting |
| 2023 | $14,889 | $13,137 | $16,792 | $9,534 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 475 rated schools reporting |
| 2024 | $18,822 | $14,924 | $18,125 | $10,466 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 488 rated schools reporting |
| 2025 | $15,959 | $14,856 | $18,972 | $10,812 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 501 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
- $63,756−$5,603 vs similar economic context
- Teachers
- 17−38.7 vs similar economic context
- Students per staff member
- 13.5−1.3 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Red Lick MS
- 1 to 5 years 5.9%
- 6 to 10 years 29.4%
- 11 to 20 years 29.4%
- 21 to 30 years 35.3%
Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 513 reporting for every category shown · 513 in full cohort
- Beginning 4.3%
- 1 to 5 years 23.6%
- 6 to 10 years 20.1%
- 11 to 20 years 31.8%
- 21 to 30 years 16.9%
- Over 30 years 2.5%
Selected comparison average For Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 142 reporting for every category shown · 142 in full cohort
- Beginning 5.6%
- 1 to 5 years 24.2%
- 6 to 10 years 18.4%
- 11 to 20 years 27.3%
- 21 to 30 years 17.2%
- Over 30 years 6.5%
Selected comparison average For Bowie County · 42 reporting for every category shown · 42 in full cohort
- Beginning 4.6%
- 1 to 5 years 22.2%
- 6 to 10 years 19.4%
- 11 to 20 years 28.9%
- 21 to 30 years 16.6%
- Over 30 years 6.1%
Selected comparison average For similarly sized schools · 1,674 reporting for every category shown · 1,674 in full cohort
- Beginning 6.6%
- 1 to 5 years 24.2%
- 6 to 10 years 17.7%
- 11 to 20 years 28.5%
- 21 to 30 years 17.6%
- Over 30 years 5%
Statewide average 7,646 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
| Grade or subject | Average students per classRed Lick MS · 2024–25 | Average students per classselected comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Grade 5 | 19.4 | 22.4 |
| Grade 6 | 18.5 | 19.2 |
| Secondary English | 18.5 | 18.7 |
| Secondary languages other than English | 7.3 | 21.4 |
| Secondary math | 16.9 | 18.9 |
| Secondary science | 17.3 | 21.6 |
| Secondary social studies | 17.3 | 21.6 |
These are TEA's actual class-size averages for the grade or subject shown, not the student-to-teacher ratio. TEA reported 7 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 120 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
5 measures
-
2of 129
All Subjects — Masters
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure
-
2of 129
Reading — Meets
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure
-
2of 129
Reading — Masters
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure
-
2of 21
Social Studies — Masters
Bowie County · of the 21 that report this measure
-
3of 129
Reading — Approaches
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 129 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
16 measures
-
4of 38
All Subjects — Meets
Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
4of 38
Math — Meets
Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
4of 21
Social Studies — Meets
Bowie County · of the 21 that report this measure
-
5of 38
Student Achievement
Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
5of 38
All Subjects — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure
-
5of 38
Math — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure
-
5of 33
Science — Masters
Bowie County · of the 33 that report this measure · tied with 2
-
5of 21
Social Studies — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 21 that report this measure
-
6of 42
Overall score
Bowie County · of the 42 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
6of 39
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Bowie County · of the 39 that report this measure
-
6of 37
Closing the Gaps
Bowie County · of the 37 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
6of 36
Academic Growth
Bowie County · of the 36 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
8of 41
Per-student spending
Bowie County · of the 41 that report this measure
-
8of 38
Math — Masters
Bowie County · of the 38 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
8of 33
Science — Meets
Bowie County · of the 33 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
9of 39
Attendance
Bowie County · of the 39 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.
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 019911041.