Districts, charter school systems & campuses · Source: Texas Education Agency
Smith ElemB87vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Traditional public school campus
Smith Elem
Lubbock County · Region 17: Lubbock · 479 students
Current score
87/1002025-26
Change
−5 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+4.6 ptsvs 82.4 average · 1,622 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
502 of 1,622tied with 86 others
Score vs region
+5.5 ptsvs 81.5 average · 182 rated schools in Region 17: Lubbock
Region 17: Lubbock placement
65 of 182tied with 5 others
Score vs county
+5.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 84 rated schools in Lubbock County
Lubbock County placement
26 of 84tied with 3 others
Score vs similar-size group
+6.9 ptsvs 80.1 average · 4,621 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
1,272 of 4,621tied with 198 others
Score vs state
+5.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
2,456 of 7,646tied with 307 others
B87
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 94 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 82.4 average for 1,622 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 81.5 average for 182 rated schools in Region 17: Lubbock.The current score is above the 81.3 average for 84 rated schools in Lubbock County.The current score is above the 80.1 average for 4,621 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
STAAR result
All Subjects above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters
Meets
71%vs 54.2% avg · +16.8 pts
Masters
39%vs 23.8% avg · +15.2 pts
Among 1,571 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
A precomputed strengths set is not available for this pinned entity. The page’s direct numeric comparisons still update to that pin.
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
Smith Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 87 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.4 average for 1,622 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 502nd of 1,622 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 86 others).
Smith Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 87 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.5 average for 182 rated schools in Region 17: Lubbock. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 65th of 182 rated schools in Region 17: Lubbock (tied with 5 others).
Smith Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 87 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 84 rated schools in Lubbock County. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 26th of 84 rated schools in Lubbock County (tied with 3 others).
Smith Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 87 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.1 average for 4,621 similarly sized rated schools. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 1,272nd of 4,621 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 198 others).
Smith Elem is rated B by TEA, scoring 87 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
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.
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 Achievement92 A+9.7 vs similar economic context · 1,571 reporting
School Progress90 A+8.3 vs similar economic context · 1,566 reporting
Closing the Gaps76 C−3.7 vs similar economic context · 1,556 reporting
Academic Growth76 C±0.0 vs similar economic context · 1,538 reporting
Relative Performance90 A+10.8 vs similar economic context · 1,566 reporting
Smith Elem
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,622 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
92
A
—
School Progress
90
A
—
Closing the Gaps
76
C
4
Academic Growth
76
C
4
Relative Performance
90
A
—
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 (92), so
School Progress (90) 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
All Subjects
Approaches grade level89%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,571 reporting
Meets grade level71%+17 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,571 reporting
Masters grade level39%+15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,571 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level91%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,570 reporting
Meets grade level79%+20 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,570 reporting
Masters grade level48%+23 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,570 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level86%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,564 reporting
Meets grade level63%+15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,564 reporting
Masters grade level29%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,564 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level89%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,452 reporting
Meets grade level75%+22 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,452 reporting
Masters grade level44%+18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,452 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,622 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
479
Economically disadvantaged
47.8%−0.6 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
4.0%−8.6 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
21.3%+2.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.2%+0.6 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
10.7%−3.2 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Smith Elem
African American 6.3%
Hispanic 44.1%
White 43.8%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 1.9%
Pacific Islander 0.6%
Two or More Races 3.1%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,622 reporting for every category shown · 1,622 in full cohort
African American 9.3%
Hispanic 39.6%
White 43.2%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 3.3%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 17: Lubbock · 182 reporting for every category shown · 182 in full cohort
African American 5%
Hispanic 61%
White 30.8%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 1%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 1.9%
Selected comparison averageFor Lubbock County · 84 reporting for every category shown · 84 in full cohort
African American 8.8%
Hispanic 54.8%
White 31.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.8%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 2.7%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,621 reporting for every category shown · 4,621 in full cohort
African American 12%
Hispanic 55.1%
White 25.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 3.9%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.4%
Statewide average7,646 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
479
Economically disadvantaged students
229
Emergent bilingual students
19
Special education students
102
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
42
Students in TEA mobility denominator
376
TEA-published mobility rate
11.2%
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 479 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 12 (2.4%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
479
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−12
Decrease · −2.4%
Change since 2021–22
−101
Decrease · −17.4%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This school
479
Selected comparison
660.2
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,585 rated schools reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Smith Elem
School year
Students enrolledSmith Elem
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
580
First available year
658.4
2022–23
561
Decrease of 19 (3.3%)
664.3
2023–24
533
Decrease of 28 (5.0%)
663.9
2024–25
491
Decrease of 42 (7.9%)
660.3
2025–26
479
Decrease of 12 (2.4%)
660.2
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.
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
3.2% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
42
7.97 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
527
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This school
3.2%
Selected comparison
11.8%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,265 rated schools reporting
−8.6 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This school
7.97
Selected comparison
26.2
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,358 rated schools reporting
−18.2 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Smith Elem
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
615
19
3.1%
31
5.04
9.5%
18.1
2021–22
608
17
2.8%
24
3.95
11.8%
25.7
2022–23
573
30
5.2%
58
10.12
12.2%
27.3
2023–24
559
29
5.2%
46
8.23
12.2%
27.8
2024–25
527
17
3.2%
42
7.97
11.8%
26.2
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Smith Elem in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
17
3.2%
42
7.97
11.8%
26.2
In-school suspensions
16
3.0%
38
7.21
10.6%
20.1
Out-of-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
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.
Smith Elem
Parent district: Lubbock ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This school
$7,520
Selected comparison
$12,035
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,593 rated schools reporting
−$4,515 vs similar economic context
For 2025, TEA reported $7,520 per student for this campus, $14,938 per student for its parent district, Lubbock 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
Year
Smith Elem
Parent district: Lubbock ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$6,489
$11,154
$13,054
$7,817
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,470 rated schools reporting
2019
$6,038
$11,025
$13,108
$8,003
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,489 rated schools reporting
2020
$6,834
$12,439
$14,058
$8,494
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,501 rated schools reporting
2021
$7,267
$14,076
$14,797
$8,905
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,520 rated schools reporting
2022
$8,128
$14,384
$15,708
$10,199
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,531 rated schools reporting
2023
$8,584
$16,314
$16,792
$10,635
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,549 rated schools reporting
2024
$8,982
$15,605
$18,125
$11,605
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,567 rated schools reporting
2025
$7,520
$14,938
$18,972
$12,035
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,593 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
$59,049−$7,950 vs similar economic context
Teachers
34−9.1 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
14.1−6.1 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Smith Elem
Beginning 5.9%
1 to 5 years 35.3%
6 to 10 years 23.5%
11 to 20 years 20.6%
21 to 30 years 11.8%
Over 30 years 2.9%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,622 reporting for every category shown · 1,622 in full cohort
Beginning 5.5%
1 to 5 years 24.1%
6 to 10 years 19.4%
11 to 20 years 29.8%
21 to 30 years 16.8%
Over 30 years 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 17: Lubbock · 182 reporting for every category shown · 182 in full cohort
Beginning 7.4%
1 to 5 years 25.5%
6 to 10 years 18.1%
11 to 20 years 27.1%
21 to 30 years 16.6%
Over 30 years 4.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Lubbock County · 84 reporting for every category shown · 84 in full cohort
Beginning 8%
1 to 5 years 25.6%
6 to 10 years 19.1%
11 to 20 years 26.9%
21 to 30 years 15.6%
Over 30 years 3.6%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,621 reporting for every category shown · 4,621 in full cohort
Beginning 6.1%
1 to 5 years 26.1%
6 to 10 years 19.4%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 16%
Over 30 years 3.3%
Statewide average7,646 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
TEA average class size by grade or subject for Smith Elem in 2024–25
Grade or subject
Average students per classSmith Elem · 2024–25
Average students per classselected comparison
Kindergarten
18.5
18
Grade 1
19.3
18.4
Grade 2
18.3
18.6
Grade 3
21
19.1
Grade 4
21
19.1
Grade 5
23.3
20
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.
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
6 measures
4of 82
Reading — Masters
Lubbock County · of the 82 that report this measure · tied with 1
5of 82
Reading — Meets
Lubbock County · of the 82 that report this measure · tied with 1
5of 78
Science — Meets
Lubbock County · of the 78 that report this measure · tied with 1
6of 82
All Subjects — Masters
Lubbock County · of the 82 that report this measure · tied with 1
7of 82
All Subjects — Meets
Lubbock County · of the 82 that report this measure
8of 78
Science — Masters
Lubbock County · of the 78 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.
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 152901179.