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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Traditional public school campus

RJ Richey Elem

Burnet County · Region 13: Austin · 515 students

Official school websiteSchool information and family resources

Current score
66/1002025-26
Change
−8 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−15.2 ptsvs 81.2 average · 1,852 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
1,754 of 1,852tied with 17 others
D66

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 72 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 81.2 average for 1,852 rated schools serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Current strength

Chronically absent lower than the similar-context average

11.6% −3.7 pts vs 15.3%

  • 11.6% is 3.7 percentage points lower than the 15.3% average among 1,796 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

RJ Richey Elem is rated D by TEA, scoring 66 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.2 average for 1,852 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 8 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 1,754th of 1,852 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 17 others).

2 consecutive years rated unacceptable.

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

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

Official improvement and transfer notices

Official state and federal designations can carry support, reporting requirements or a family transfer option that a single A–F rating does not explain.

2026 federal improvement status

Comprehensive Support and Improvement

Official support label: Comprehensive Progress

Identification reason: CSI Low Performance

TEA track year 2 · Title I campus

Open the official TEA list and methodology

Schools identified for improvement

This school
Listed
Selected comparison
22.4%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,852 rated schools reporting

Schools on the PEG list

This school
Not listed
Selected comparison
1.4%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,852 rated schools reporting

Selected comparison percentages are the share of reporting schools in that group found on each dated list. They are neutral prevalence context; changing the comparison never changes this school's official status.

These are dated TEA statuses, fetched 24 August 2026; they are not added to or subtracted from this site's rating.

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
9080706050 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageRJ Richey Elem 7467696266 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 C with 72 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
2025-26D6681.2 1,852 reporting81.3 7,646 reporting
2024-25D6281.2 1,827 reporting81.2 7,554 reporting
2023-24D6979.2 1,799 reporting78.9 7,466 reporting
2022-23D6779.9 1,767 reporting79.1 7,377 reporting
2021-22C7482.8 1,739 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 Achievement67 D−13.3 vs similar economic context · 1,781 reporting
  • School Progress59 F−22.3 vs similar economic context · 1,773 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps62 D−16.4 vs similar economic context · 1,757 reporting
  • Academic Growth59 F−15.8 vs similar economic context · 1,726 reporting
  • Relative Performance59 F−20.4 vs similar economic context · 1,773 reporting
  • RJ Richey Elem
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,852 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement67D3
School Progress59F1
Closing the Gaps62D8
Academic Growth59F1
Relative Performance59F1

Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 3 points below C 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 (67), so School Progress (59) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 67.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level64%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,781 reporting
  • Meets grade level38%−13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,781 reporting
  • Masters grade level14%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,781 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level68%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,778 reporting
  • Meets grade level46%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,778 reporting
  • Masters grade level18%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,778 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level59%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,768 reporting
  • Meets grade level34%−11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,768 reporting
  • Masters grade level12%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,768 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level65%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
  • Meets grade level27%−23 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
  • Masters grade level8%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,630 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,852 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
515
Economically disadvantaged
55.6%−0.5 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
12.3%−2.1 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
24.5%+5.7 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.0%+0.6 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
11.6%−3.7 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

RJ Richey Elem

African American: 1.4%Hispanic: 33.9%White: 61.3%American Indian: 0.4%Asian: 0.6%Two or More Races: 2.5%
  • African American 1.4%
  • Hispanic 33.9%
  • White 61.3%
  • American Indian 0.4%
  • Asian 0.6%
  • Two or More Races 2.5%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,852 reporting for every category shown · 1,852 in full cohort

African American: 10%Hispanic: 44.8%White: 38.1%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 2.5%Pacific Islander: 0.2%Two or More Races: 4%
  • African American 10%
  • Hispanic 44.8%
  • White 38.1%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 2.5%
  • Pacific Islander 0.2%
  • Two or More Races 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
514
Economically disadvantaged students
286
Emergent bilingual students
63
Special education students
126

Campus mobility · 2024–25

Mobile students
66
Students in TEA mobility denominator
557
TEA-published mobility rate
11.8%

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 515 students in 2025–26, an increase of 5 (1.0%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
515

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
+5

Increase · +1.0%

Change since 2021–22
+20

Increase · +4.0%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This school
515
Selected comparison
635.6

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,813 rated schools reporting

Student enrollment by school year for RJ Richey Elem
School yearStudents enrolledRJ Richey ElemChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 495 First available year 640.7
2022–23 487 Decrease of 8 (1.6%) 646.5
2023–24 495 Increase of 8 (1.6%) 644.8
2024–25 510 Increase of 15 (3.0%) 641.2
2025–26 515 Increase of 5 (1.0%) 635.6

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
45

8.1% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
91

16.34 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
557

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This school
8.1%
Selected comparison
12.4%

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,426 rated schools reporting

−4.3 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This school
16.34
Selected comparison
27.9

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,544 rated schools reporting

−11.6 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for RJ Richey Elem
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 502 12 2.4% 20 3.98 9.7% 18.9
2021–22 529 32 6.0% 54 10.21 12.4% 28.1
2022–23 513 38 7.4% 65 12.67 12.9% 29.7
2023–24 530 36 6.8% 50 9.43 12.8% 29.8
2024–25 557 45 8.1% 91 16.34 12.4% 27.9
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for RJ Richey Elem in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 45 8.1% 91 16.34 12.4% 27.9
In-school suspensions 38 6.8% 76 13.64 11.2% 21.7
Out-of-school suspensions 10 1.8% 13 2.33 6.4% 9.1
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.

$5k$13k$22k20182020202220242025
  • RJ Richey Elem
  • Parent district: Burnet CISD
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This school
$6,189
Selected comparison
$12,283

average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,824 rated schools reporting

−$6,094 vs similar economic context

For 2025, TEA reported $6,189 per student for this campus, $14,455 per student for its parent district, Burnet CISD, $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
YearRJ Richey ElemParent district: Burnet CISDTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$5,440$12,369$13,054$7,928 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,675 rated schools reporting
2019$5,485$12,282$13,108$8,096 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,691 rated schools reporting
2020$6,192$12,838$14,058$8,673 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,708 rated schools reporting
2021$6,800$13,716$14,797$9,047 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,724 rated schools reporting
2022$6,764$20,758$15,708$10,455 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,741 rated schools reporting
2023$7,056$20,649$16,792$10,916 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,767 rated schools reporting
2024$6,459$15,200$18,125$11,750 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,796 rated schools reporting
2025$6,189$14,455$18,972$12,283 average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,824 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
$63,183−$3,363 vs similar economic context
Teachers
32−9.6 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
15.9−3.4 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

RJ Richey Elem

Beginning: 15.5%1 to 5 years: 18.6%6 to 10 years: 23.2%11 to 20 years: 31.6%21 to 30 years: 9.9%Over 30 years: 1.5%
  • Beginning 15.5%
  • 1 to 5 years 18.6%
  • 6 to 10 years 23.2%
  • 11 to 20 years 31.6%
  • 21 to 30 years 9.9%
  • Over 30 years 1.5%

Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,852 reporting for every category shown · 1,852 in full cohort

Beginning: 5.8%1 to 5 years: 24.8%6 to 10 years: 19.4%11 to 20 years: 28.7%21 to 30 years: 16.4%Over 30 years: 4.4%
  • Beginning 5.8%
  • 1 to 5 years 24.8%
  • 6 to 10 years 19.4%
  • 11 to 20 years 28.7%
  • 21 to 30 years 16.4%
  • Over 30 years 4.4%

Average students in a class

TEA average class size by grade or subject for RJ Richey Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subjectAverage students per classRJ Richey Elem · 2024–25Average students per classselected comparison
Grade 322.718.8
Grade 421.119
Grade 52419.7

These are TEA's actual class-size averages for the grade or subject shown, not the student-to-teacher ratio. TEA reported 3 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.

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

20 measures

  • 4of 11

    Math — Meets

    Burnet County · of the 11 that report this measure

  • 4of 11

    Math — Masters

    Burnet County · of the 11 that report this measure

  • 5of 12

    Reading — Meets

    Burnet County · of the 12 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 5of 12

    Reading — Masters

    Burnet County · of the 12 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 6of 13

    Attendance

    Burnet County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 6of 12

    All Subjects — Meets

    Burnet County · of the 12 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 6of 12

    All Subjects — Masters

    Burnet County · of the 12 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 7of 13

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

    Burnet County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 7of 12

    Reading — Approaches

    Burnet County · of the 12 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 7of 10

    Science — Approaches

    Burnet County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 8of 11

    Relative Performance

    Burnet County · of the 11 that report this measure

  • 8of 11

    Math — Approaches

    Burnet County · of the 11 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Closing the Gaps

    Burnet County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Academic Growth

    Burnet County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Science — Meets

    Burnet County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Science — Masters

    Burnet County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 13

    Overall score

    Burnet County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 9of 12

    Student Achievement

    Burnet County · of the 12 that report this measure

  • 9of 12

    All Subjects — Approaches

    Burnet County · of the 12 that report this measure

  • 9of 11

    School Progress

    Burnet County · of the 11 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 027903104.