Districts, charter school systems & campuses · Source: Texas Education Agency
Young Women's Leadership AcademyA97vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Traditional public school campus
Young Women's Leadership Academy
Midland County · Region 18: Midland · 436 students
Current score
97/1002025-26
Change
+1 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+10.5 ptsvs 86.5 average · 1,114 rated schools serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
20 of 1,114tied with 11 others
Score vs region
+19.2 ptsvs 77.8 average · 157 rated schools in Region 18: Midland
Region 18: Midland placement
4 of 157tied with 3 others
Score vs county
+19.0 ptsvs 78 average · 43 rated schools in Midland County
Midland County placement
3 of 43among reporting schools
Score vs similar-size group
+16.9 ptsvs 80.1 average · 4,336 similarly sized rated schools
Similar size placement
53 of 4,336tied with 38 others
Score vs state
+15.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
Texas placement
82 of 7,646tied with 63 others
A97
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 97 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 86.5 average for 1,114 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 77.8 average for 157 rated schools in Region 18: Midland.The current score is above the 78 average for 43 rated schools in Midland County.The current score is above the 80.1 average for 4,336 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
School Progress rose 4 points
94 to 982024-25 to 2025-26
98 is 14.3 points above
the 83.7 average among 1,086 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Tied for 3rd of 1,086 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure; 6 schools share that value.
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
Young Women's Leadership Academy is rated A by TEA, scoring 97 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 86.5 average for 1,114 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 20th of 1,114 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 11 others).
Young Women's Leadership Academy is rated A by TEA, scoring 97 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 77.8 average for 157 rated schools in Region 18: Midland. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 4th of 157 rated schools in Region 18: Midland (tied with 3 others).
Young Women's Leadership Academy is rated A by TEA, scoring 97 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 78 average for 43 rated schools in Midland County. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 3rd of 43 rated schools in Midland County.
Young Women's Leadership Academy is rated A by TEA, scoring 97 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.1 average for 4,336 similarly sized rated schools. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 53rd of 4,336 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 38 others).
Young Women's Leadership Academy is rated A by TEA, scoring 97 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is up 1 point 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 97 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 Achievement98 A+10.9 vs similar economic context · 1,089 reporting
School Progress98 A+14.3 vs similar economic context · 1,086 reporting
Closing the Gaps95 A+11.1 vs similar economic context · 1,078 reporting
Academic Growth91 A+11.4 vs similar economic context · 1,069 reporting
Relative Performance98 A+18.0 vs similar economic context · 1,086 reporting
Young Women's Leadership Academy
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,114 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
98
A
—
School Progress
98
A
—
Closing the Gaps
95
A
—
Academic Growth
91
A
—
Relative Performance
98
A
—
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%.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level98%+15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,089 reporting
Meets grade level89%+26 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,089 reporting
Masters grade level60%+29 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,089 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level99%+14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,088 reporting
Meets grade level91%+24 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,088 reporting
Masters grade level63%+31 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,088 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level99%+18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,085 reporting
Meets grade level90%+34 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,085 reporting
Masters grade level59%+33 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,085 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level96%+12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 999 reporting
Meets grade level87%+26 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 999 reporting
Masters grade level57%+24 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 999 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level92%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 561 reporting
Meets grade level82%+22 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 561 reporting
Masters grade level58%+26 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 561 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,114 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.
Graduation
Four-Year
0.0%−92.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Five-Year
0.0%−92.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 319 rated schools reporting
Six-Year
0.0%−92.1 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.3 pts vs similar economic contextaverage forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
These measures use TEA's standard-accountability population. Each comparison average includes only schools in that population that report that specific measure; its reporting count is shown beside the average. It is an unweighted average of those reported school rates, not a pooled rate across every student in the group.
College, career and military readiness
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%+10.8 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This school% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%
89.2%
+10.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
96.7%
63.4%
+33.3
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
86.7%
40.7%
+46.0
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
96.7%
18.1%
+78.6
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
53.3%
38.4%
+14.9
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
0.0%
35.8%
−35.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
0.8%
−0.8
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
4.6%
−4.6
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
93.3%
6.3%
+87.0
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
0.0%
2.6%
−2.6
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
0.0%
6.9%
−6.9
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
0.0%
3.2%
−3.2
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 rated schools reporting
Every row is a share of this school's graduates, and every row is a way of
meeting CCMR — so on every row, a bigger share is better. Difference is this
school minus the average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate,
counted in percentage points: +5.0 would mean five more graduates in every hundred met that
criterion here. The selected comparison is an unweighted average of the reported school percentages, not a pooled rate across all graduates in the group. Graduates may meet several criteria, so the rows do not add up to the total.
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
436
Economically disadvantaged
33.0%−1.0 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
4.1%−6.4 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
3.9%−13.6 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
96.2%+1.1 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
7.4%−3.9 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Young Women's Leadership Academy
African American 10.6%
Hispanic 44%
White 33.5%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 8.5%
Two or More Races 3%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,114 reporting for every category shown · 1,114 in full cohort
African American 9.1%
Hispanic 31.2%
White 47.8%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 6.7%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 18: Midland · 157 reporting for every category shown · 157 in full cohort
African American 3.4%
Hispanic 72.1%
White 20.8%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 1.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 1.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Midland County · 43 reporting for every category shown · 43 in full cohort
African American 6%
Hispanic 66%
White 22.8%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 2.7%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.1%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,336 reporting for every category shown · 4,336 in full cohort
African American 11.8%
Hispanic 55%
White 25.9%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 3.5%
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
436
Economically disadvantaged students
144
Emergent bilingual students
18
Special education students
17
Campus mobility · 2024–25
Mobile students
34
Students in TEA mobility denominator
438
TEA-published mobility rate
7.8%
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 436 students in 2025–26, an increase of 12 (2.8%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
436
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+12
Increase · +2.8%
Change since 2021–22
+106
Increase · +32.1%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This school
436
Selected comparison
773
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,095 rated schools reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Young Women's Leadership Academy
School year
Students enrolledYoung Women's Leadership Academy
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
330
First available year
784.7
2022–23
358
Increase of 28 (8.5%)
786.6
2023–24
351
Decrease of 7 (2.0%)
783.9
2024–25
424
Increase of 73 (20.8%)
780.7
2025–26
436
Increase of 12 (2.8%)
773
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
12
2.8% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
17
4.03 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
422
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This school
2.8%
Selected comparison
9.5%
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 843 rated schools reporting
−6.7 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This school
4.03
Selected comparison
19.7
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 926 rated schools reporting
−15.7 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Young Women's Leadership Academy
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
293
12
4.1%
19
6.48
7.8%
14.1
2021–22
326
11
3.4%
14
4.29
9.9%
20.2
2022–23
366
20
5.5%
35
9.56
10.1%
21.1
2023–24
347
15
4.3%
20
5.76
9.8%
21
2024–25
422
12
2.8%
17
4.03
9.5%
19.7
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Young Women's Leadership Academy in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
12
2.8%
17
4.03
9.5%
19.7
In-school suspensions
12
2.8%
13
3.08
8.5%
15.4
Out-of-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
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.
Young Women's Leadership Academy
Parent district: Midland ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This school
$8,905
Selected comparison
$11,815
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,091 rated schools reporting
−$2,910 vs similar economic context
For 2025, TEA reported $8,905 per student for this campus, $18,529 per student for its parent district, Midland 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
Young Women's Leadership Academy
Parent district: Midland ISD
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2020
$10,525
$10,668
$14,058
$8,092
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,013 rated schools reporting
2021
$10,713
$12,683
$14,797
$8,528
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,024 rated schools reporting
2022
$8,829
$12,705
$15,708
$9,782
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,044 rated schools reporting
2023
$14,474
$13,012
$16,792
$10,297
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,063 rated schools reporting
2024
$13,759
$14,999
$18,125
$11,374
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,075 rated schools reporting
2025
$8,905
$18,529
$18,972
$11,815
average forschools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,091 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
$73,036+$4,917 vs similar economic context
Teachers
22−28.9 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
20.2+5.8 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Young Women's Leadership Academy
1 to 5 years 25%
6 to 10 years 17.6%
11 to 20 years 39.8%
21 to 30 years 16.2%
Over 30 years 1.4%
Selected comparison averageFor schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,114 reporting for every category shown · 1,114 in full cohort
Beginning 4.9%
1 to 5 years 22.6%
6 to 10 years 19.7%
11 to 20 years 32%
21 to 30 years 17.3%
Over 30 years 3.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 18: Midland · 157 reporting for every category shown · 157 in full cohort
Beginning 7.8%
1 to 5 years 27.9%
6 to 10 years 17.4%
11 to 20 years 24.1%
21 to 30 years 13.1%
Over 30 years 4.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Midland County · 43 reporting for every category shown · 43 in full cohort
Beginning 5.8%
1 to 5 years 26.9%
6 to 10 years 17.8%
11 to 20 years 25.6%
21 to 30 years 11.4%
Over 30 years 3.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized schools · 4,336 reporting for every category shown · 4,336 in full cohort
Beginning 6.1%
1 to 5 years 25.9%
6 to 10 years 19.2%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 16.2%
Over 30 years 3.4%
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 Young Women's Leadership Academy in 2024–25
Grade or subject
Average students per classYoung Women's Leadership Academy · 2024–25
Average students per classselected comparison
Grade 6
11.5
18.5
Secondary English
9.8
16.5
Secondary languages other than English
11.4
18.5
Secondary math
8.4
17.3
Secondary science
11.3
18.7
Secondary social studies
9.8
18.8
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 184 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
6 measures
1of 320
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 320 that report this measure
1of 144
Student Achievement
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure · tied with 2
1of 144
School Progress
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure · tied with 1
1of 144
Relative Performance
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure · tied with 1
1of 43
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
Region 18: Midland · of the 43 that report this measure
1of 12
Social Studies — Masters
Midland County · of the 12 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
18 measures
2of 144
All Subjects — Masters
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure
2of 144
Math — Meets
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 144
Math — Masters
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure
2of 43
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Region 18: Midland · of the 43 that report this measure
2of 43
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Region 18: Midland · of the 43 that report this measure
2of 41
Reading — Approaches
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 41
Reading — Masters
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure
2of 41
Math — Approaches
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 41
Attendance
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 12
Social Studies — Approaches
Midland County · of the 12 that report this measure · tied with 2
2of 12
Social Studies — Meets
Midland County · of the 12 that report this measure
3of 144
All Subjects — Approaches
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure · tied with 2
3of 144
All Subjects — Meets
Region 18: Midland · of the 144 that report this measure
3of 137
Science — Masters
Region 18: Midland · of the 137 that report this measure
3of 43
Overall score
Midland County · of the 43 that report this measure
3of 41
Closing the Gaps
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure
3of 41
Academic Growth
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure
3of 41
Reading — Meets
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
3 measures
4of 41
Science — Meets
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 41
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Midland County · of the 41 that report this measure
5of 41
Science — Approaches
Midland County · of the 41 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 165901007.