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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Geographic public school district

Campbell ISD

Hunt County · Region 10: Richardson · 298 students

Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility

Current score
69/1002025-26
Change
+7 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−9.7 ptsvs 78.7 average · 328 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
290 of 328tied with 13 others
D69

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 71 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 78.7 average for 328 rated districts serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

STAAR result

Social Studies above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters

Meets
50%vs 42.1% avg · +7.9 pts
Masters
19%vs 16.8% avg · +2.2 pts

Among 321 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.

See the full measure

Current strength

Four-Year Graduation Rate above the similar-context average

100% +4.3 pts vs 95.7%

  • 100% is 4.3 percentage points above the 95.7% average among 310 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure (standard accountability only).
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 district.

Read the full rating context and placement

Campbell ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 69 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 78.7 average for 328 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 7 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 290th of 328 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 13 others).

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

Jump to a section
  1. Overview
  2. 5 years of ratings
  3. Where the score comes from
  4. Student outcomes
  5. Who this district serves
  6. Student counts behind the percentages
  7. Enrollment over time
  8. Students crossing district lines
  9. Discipline and removal from class
  10. Community around the district
  11. 1 schools in this district
  12. Spending per student
  13. Teachers
  14. Where this district ranks best
  15. Where this comes from

5 years of ratings

Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.

Compare against
9080706050 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageCampbell ISD 6265567769 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 71 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
2025-26D6978.7 328 reporting81.7 1,019 reporting
2024-25C7777.1 328 reporting80.3 1,019 reporting
2023-24F5675.5 328 reporting78.7 1,017 reporting
2022-23D6576.1 328 reporting79.2 1,018 reporting
2021-22D6278.1 328 reporting80.6 1,017 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 Achievement71 C−6.1 vs similar economic context · 328 reporting
  • School Progress71 C−8.6 vs similar economic context · 328 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps63 D−12.7 vs similar economic context · 327 reporting
  • Academic Growth63 D−7.0 vs similar economic context · 328 reporting
  • Relative Performance71 C−8.2 vs similar economic context · 328 reporting
  • Campbell ISD
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (328 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement71C9
School Progress71C9
Closing the Gaps63D7
Academic Growth63D7
Relative Performance71C9

Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 7 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%.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level73%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
  • Meets grade level44%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
  • Masters grade level14%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level76%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
  • Meets grade level53%+6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
  • Masters grade level16%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level65%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
  • Meets grade level33%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
  • Masters grade level12%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level78%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Meets grade level37%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Masters grade level12%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level84%+13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 reporting
  • Meets grade level50%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 reporting
  • Masters grade level19%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (328 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 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate — a comparison TEA does not publish.

Graduation

Four-Year
100.0%+4.3 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 310 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+3.8 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 310 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
100.0%+4.2 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 309 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.7 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting

These measures use TEA's standard-accountability population. Each comparison average includes only districts in that population that report that specific measure; its reporting count is shown beside the average. It is an unweighted average of those reported district rates, not a pooled rate across every student in the group.

College, career and military readiness

Total credit for CCMR criteria
45.0%−43.1 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
CriterionThis district% of graduatesAveragesimilar economic contextDifferencepercentage pointsReportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria45.0%88.1%−43.1 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 311 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course9.1%56.0%−46.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA9.1%22.9%−13.8 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)0.0%5.6%−5.6 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course9.1%31.5%−22.4 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification22.7%44.6%−21.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate0.0%2.3%−2.3 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree0.0%4.4%−4.4 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit0.0%2.5%−2.5 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness4.5%3.9%+0.6 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student18.2%9.8%+8.4 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces0.0%3.2%−3.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting

Every row is a share of this district's graduates, and every row is a way of meeting CCMR — so on every row, a bigger share is better. Difference is this district minus the average for districts 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 district 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 districts for which TEA reported that measure; metric-specific reporting counts are shown on the STAAR, graduation and CCMR rows and may vary.

Who this district serves

Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.

Students
298
Economically disadvantaged
73.5%+1.1 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
15.4%−0.1 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
23.2%+4.7 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.8%+0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
12.9%−4.9 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Campbell ISD

African American: 1.3%Hispanic: 33.2%White: 61.1%American Indian: 1%Asian: 0.7%Two or More Races: 2.7%
  • African American 1.3%
  • Hispanic 33.2%
  • White 61.1%
  • American Indian 1%
  • Asian 0.7%
  • Two or More Races 2.7%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting for every category shown · 328 in full cohort

African American: 8.3%Hispanic: 54.7%White: 32.8%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 0.7%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 3.1%
  • African American 8.3%
  • Hispanic 54.7%
  • White 32.8%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 0.7%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 3.1%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
298
Economically disadvantaged students
219
Emergent bilingual students
46
Special education students
69

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 298 students in 2025–26, an increase of 29 (10.8%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
298

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
+29

Increase · +10.8%

Change since 2021–22
−5

Decrease · −1.7%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This district
298
Selected comparison
5,399.1

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Campbell ISD
School yearStudents enrolledCampbell ISDChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 303 First available year 5,612.3
2022–23 295 Decrease of 8 (2.6%) 5,633
2023–24 287 Decrease of 8 (2.7%) 5,577.8
2024–25 269 Decrease of 18 (6.3%) 5,544.7
2025–26 298 Increase of 29 (10.8%) 5,399.1

The selected comparison column is the average enrollment among reporting districts in that group. It changes with the comparison control; this district'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.

Students crossing district lines

How many students live in one public-school district and attend in another. These are movement counts, not a measure of family satisfaction or school quality.

Transfers in
59

Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26

Transfers out
138

Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26

Transfers in minus transfers out
−79

Arithmetic context only

Transfers in · 2025–26

This district
59
Selected comparison
331.8

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting

Transfers out · 2025–26

This district
138
Selected comparison
1,037.4

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 319 rated districts reporting

Transfers in minus out · 2025–26

This district
−79
Selected comparison
−780

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 298 rated districts reporting

Official transfer totals by school year for Campbell ISD
School yearTransfers inCampbell ISDTransfers outCampbell ISDIn minus outCampbell ISDTransfers inselected comparison averageTransfers outselected comparison averageIn minus outselected comparison average
2021–22 55 94 −39 224.4 880 −727
2022–23 63 101 −38 256.6 921.4 −733
2023–24 51 117 −66 279.9 978 −760
2024–25 44 132 −88 319.9 1,018.3 −761
2025–26 59 138 −79 331.8 1,037.4 −780

Largest reported origins for transfers in

  1. Greenville ISD 11690539

Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 7 counterpart counts and masked 6.

Largest reported destinations for transfers out

  1. Cumby Collegiate ISD 11290547
  2. Commerce ISD 11690328
  3. Pioneer Technology & Arts Academy 05785019
  4. Greenville ISD 11690512

Top reported flows only. TEA published 4 of 12 counterpart counts and masked 8.

Selected comparison figures are average reported counts, not rates; group size and district enrollment affect them. They provide scale context and are not a performance judgment. This district's official totals do not change when the comparison does.

Source: TEA Student Transfer Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The totals are TEA's official district rows; this site does not add masked detail cells. A transfer records a mismatch between district of residence and public district or charter of attendance. It does not say why a family transferred, whether the move was optional, or whether either school is better.

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
38

12.8% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
82

27.52 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
298

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This district
12.8%
Selected comparison
12.3%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 300 rated districts reporting

+0.4 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This district
27.52
Selected comparison
28.6

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 307 rated districts reporting

−1.1 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Campbell ISD
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 339 11 3.2% 16 4.72 8.7% 17.8
2021–22 347 30 8.7% 54 15.56 12.5% 28.6
2022–23 334 29 8.7% 48 14.37 13.0% 30.8
2023–24 317 47 14.8% 75 23.66 12.7% 30.4
2024–25 298 38 12.8% 82 27.52 12.3% 28.6
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Campbell ISD in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 38 12.8% 82 27.52 12.3% 28.6
In-school suspensions 33 11.1% 58 19.46 10.5% 20.4
Out-of-school suspensions Suppressed — 15 5.03 — 7.2
DAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Mandatory DAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
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 districts can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this district'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.

Community around the district

A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.

People living inside the district boundary
2,771

2024 Census estimate

Children ages 5–17
470

Living inside the boundary

Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
55

11.7%

School-age child poverty rate
11.7%

55 of 470

Boundary population

This district
2,771
Selected comparison
36,174

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 327 rated districts reporting

School-age population

This district
470
Selected comparison
6,427.8

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 327 rated districts reporting

School-age population in poverty

This district
55
Selected comparison
1,381.3

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 327 rated districts reporting

School-age child poverty rate

This district
11.7%
Selected comparison
21.3%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 327 rated districts reporting

−9.6 pts vs similar economic context

Population averages provide neutral scale context and can differ sharply across a region, county or the state. The poverty-rate comparison is the like-for-like percentage; none of these Census measures is treated as school performance.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, fetched 24 August 2026. These are modeled estimates for residents inside the geographic district, not the students enrolled by the district. A family's poverty status is context, never a school-quality measure.

1 schools in this district

Number of schools in the district

This district
1
Selected comparison
9.3

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting

The selected comparison is a neutral average district size. This district's school count and school-type mix remain its own facts.

K-12
1
Browse all 1 schoolsName, type, rating, score and enrollment
Schools in this district
SchoolTypeRatingScoreStudents
Campbell HSK-12D69147

Spending per student

The selected txschools.net comparison changes with the page-wide control. TEA's own peer group and statewide reference stay visible as separately published, fixed TEA references.

$10k$21k$31k20182020202220242025
  • Campbell ISD
  • TEA peer group
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This district
$29,692
Selected comparison
$23,426

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting

+$6,267 vs similar economic context

This district spends $3,763 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $10,720 more per student than the state average.

View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
YearCampbell ISDTEA peer groupTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$11,686$14,290$13,054$14,089 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting
2019$12,747$14,384$13,108$14,462 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting
2020$15,226$16,581$14,058$15,599 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting
2021$17,207$17,863$14,797$16,779 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting
2022$17,301$19,817$15,708$18,086 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting
2023$19,585$21,827$16,792$20,325 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting
2024$18,542$23,517$18,125$21,663 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting
2025$29,692$25,929$18,972$23,426 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts 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

Average salary
$67,515+$3,843 vs similar economic context
Teachers
29−334.3 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
10.2−3.1 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Campbell ISD

1 to 5 years: 27.3%6 to 10 years: 30.7%11 to 20 years: 27.3%21 to 30 years: 11.3%Over 30 years: 3.1%
  • 1 to 5 years 27.3%
  • 6 to 10 years 30.7%
  • 11 to 20 years 27.3%
  • 21 to 30 years 11.3%
  • Over 30 years 3.1%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting for every category shown · 328 in full cohort

Beginning: 7.4%1 to 5 years: 26.7%6 to 10 years: 17.5%11 to 20 years: 26%21 to 30 years: 16.8%Over 30 years: 5.5%
  • Beginning 7.4%
  • 1 to 5 years 26.7%
  • 6 to 10 years 17.5%
  • 11 to 20 years 26%
  • 21 to 30 years 16.8%
  • Over 30 years 5.5%

Teacher turnover over time

TEA reported a 37.4% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.

Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25

This district
37.4%
Selected comparison
23.6%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 rated districts reporting

+13.8 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Campbell ISD
School yearTeacher turnover rateCampbell ISDAverage turnover rateselected comparison
2020–2139.5%18.2%
2021–2231.9%22.1%
2022–2328.0%26.2%
2023–2455.2%23.1%
2024–2537.4%23.6%

TEA defines this district rate as the share of teacher full-time equivalents from the prior fall who are not employed as teachers in the district in the current fall. That can include leaving the district or remaining in a different role; it is not a campus-level measure. The comparison average changes with the selected group; this district's reported rate does not.

Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, fetched 24 August 2026.

Where this district ranks best

Out of 200 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

2 measures

  • 1of 10

    Six-Year Graduation Rate

    Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 2

  • 1of 10

    Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

#2–3 rankings

Second- and third-place results

1 measure

  • 3of 10

    Per-student spending

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

30 measures

  • 5of 10

    Reading — Meets

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

  • 5of 10

    Social Studies — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 5of 10

    Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 6of 10

    Social Studies — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 6of 10

    Social Studies — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    All Subjects — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    All Subjects — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    All Subjects — Masters

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

  • 7of 10

    Reading — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    Reading — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    Math — Masters

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

  • 7of 10

    Attendance

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Student Achievement

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Math — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Math — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Science — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Science — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Science — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Overall score

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · full ranking

  • 9of 10

    School Progress

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Academic Growth

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Relative Performance

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Earned an industry-based certification

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Closing the Gaps

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    College, career or military ready

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Earned college credit for a dual credit course

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

These are selected high placements, not a summary. Every figure above this section is the full picture, including where this district 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 district; any tie that does appear is labeled. Every ranking this site publishes, including the ones no district 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 this district as CSV · JSON · the whole dataset