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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Traditional public school campus

Richard T Mcreavy Elem

Waller County · Region 04: Houston · 592 students

Official school websiteSchool information and family resources

Current score
90/1002025-26
Change
+1 ptssince 2024-25
Score vs similar economic context
+1.9 ptsvs 88.1 average · 926 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
414 of 926tied with 73 others
A90

At a glance

The available rating history is moving up. The current score is above the 88.1 average for 926 rated schools serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

STAAR result

All Subjects above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters

Meets
68%vs 66.3% avg · +1.7 pts
Masters
36%vs 34.7% avg · +1.3 pts

Among 906 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
66%vs 60.9% avg · +5.1 pts
Masters
33%vs 29.6% avg · +3.4 pts

Among 904 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

Richard T Mcreavy Elem is rated A by TEA, scoring 90 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 88.1 average for 926 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is up 1 point since 2024-25.

Ranks 414th of 926 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 73 others).

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

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

2 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 averageRichard T Mcreavy Elem 8990 2024-252025-26

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
2025-26A9088.1 926 reporting81.3 7,646 reporting
2024-25B8988.0 914 reporting81.2 7,554 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 Achievement91 A+2.1 vs similar economic context · 906 reporting
  • School Progress86 B+1.3 vs similar economic context · 904 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps86 B+0.3 vs similar economic context · 899 reporting
  • Academic Growth86 B+4.6 vs similar economic context · 890 reporting
  • Relative Performance80 B+0.1 vs similar economic context · 904 reporting
  • Richard T Mcreavy Elem
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (926 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement91A—
School Progress86B4
Closing the Gaps86B4
Academic Growth86B4
Relative Performance80B10

Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 4 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 (91), so School Progress (86) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 91.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level86%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 906 reporting
  • Meets grade level68%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 906 reporting
  • Masters grade level36%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 906 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level86%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 906 reporting
  • Meets grade level74%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 906 reporting
  • Masters grade level43%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 906 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level86%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 904 reporting
  • Meets grade level66%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 904 reporting
  • Masters grade level33%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 904 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level83%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 828 reporting
  • Meets grade level53%−11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 828 reporting
  • Masters grade level25%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 828 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (926 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
592
Economically disadvantaged
26.6%−1.0 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
20.1%+10.0 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
14.4%−2.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.8%+0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
7.3%−2.6 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Richard T Mcreavy Elem

African American: 21.2%Hispanic: 30.5%White: 31.5%American Indian: 0.2%Asian: 10.3%Two or More Races: 6.4%
  • African American 21.2%
  • Hispanic 30.5%
  • White 31.5%
  • American Indian 0.2%
  • Asian 10.3%
  • Two or More Races 6.4%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 926 reporting for every category shown · 926 in full cohort

African American: 8.8%Hispanic: 28.1%White: 48.3%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 9.3%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 5%
  • African American 8.8%
  • Hispanic 28.1%
  • White 48.3%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 9.3%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 5%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
591
Economically disadvantaged students
157
Emergent bilingual students
119
Special education students
85

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students
57
Students in TEA mobility denominator
358
TEA-published mobility rate
15.9%

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.

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
13

2.78 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
467

2024–25

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This school
2.78
Selected comparison
16.2

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 756 rated schools reporting

−13.4 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Richard T Mcreavy Elem
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2024–25 467 Suppressed — 13 2.78 — 16.2
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Richard T Mcreavy Elem in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline Suppressed — 13 2.78 — 16.2
In-school suspensions Suppressed — 13 2.78 — 12.7
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.

$10k$22k$33k2025
  • Richard T Mcreavy Elem
  • Parent district: Waller ISD
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This school
$12,020
Selected comparison
$11,391

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 913 rated schools reporting

+$629 vs similar economic context

For 2025, TEA reported $12,020 per student for this campus, $31,511 per student for its parent district, Waller 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
YearRichard T Mcreavy ElemParent district: Waller ISDTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2025$12,020$31,511$18,972$11,391 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 913 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
$70,261+$1,868 vs similar economic context
Teachers
36−17.5 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
16.5+1.8 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Richard T Mcreavy Elem

Beginning: 2.8%1 to 5 years: 18.8%6 to 10 years: 30.8%11 to 20 years: 42%21 to 30 years: 2.8%Over 30 years: 2.8%
  • Beginning 2.8%
  • 1 to 5 years 18.8%
  • 6 to 10 years 30.8%
  • 11 to 20 years 42%
  • 21 to 30 years 2.8%
  • Over 30 years 2.8%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 926 reporting for every category shown · 926 in full cohort

Beginning: 4.8%1 to 5 years: 22.6%6 to 10 years: 19.8%11 to 20 years: 32.2%21 to 30 years: 17.3%Over 30 years: 3.1%
  • Beginning 4.8%
  • 1 to 5 years 22.6%
  • 6 to 10 years 19.8%
  • 11 to 20 years 32.2%
  • 21 to 30 years 17.3%
  • Over 30 years 3.1%

Average students in a class

TEA average class size by grade or subject for Richard T Mcreavy Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subjectAverage students per classRichard T Mcreavy Elem · 2024–25Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten20.518.5
Grade 117.718.9
Grade 22119.5
Grade 318.120.5
Grade 418.320
Grade 519.421.7

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

15 measures

  • 1of 20

    Overall score

    Waller County · of the 20 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Student Achievement

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    School Progress

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Academic Growth

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    All Subjects — Approaches

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    All Subjects — Meets

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    All Subjects — Masters

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Reading — Approaches

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Reading — Meets

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Reading — Masters

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Math — Approaches

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Math — Meets

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 18

    Math — Masters

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 1of 17

    Attendance

    Waller County · of the 17 that report this measure

  • 1of 17

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

    Waller County · of the 17 that report this measure

#2–3 rankings

Second- and third-place results

1 measure

  • 3of 18

    Closing the Gaps

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

4 measures

  • 4of 18

    Science — Approaches

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 4of 18

    Science — Meets

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure

  • 4of 18

    Science — Masters

    Waller County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 6of 18

    Relative Performance

    Waller County · of the 18 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 237904109.