−16.9 ptsvs 85.9 average · 161 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
159 of 161among reporting districts
Score vs region
−11.2 ptsvs 80.2 average · 55 rated districts in Region 06: Huntsville
Region 06: Huntsville placement
49 of 55tied with 4 others
Score vs county
−1.0 ptsvs 70 average · 4 rated districts in Trinity County
Score vs similar-size group
−13.6 ptsvs 82.6 average · 139 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
125 of 139tied with 5 others
Score vs state
−12.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
951 of 1,019tied with 25 others
D69
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 88 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 85.9 average for 161 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 80.2 average for 55 rated districts in Region 06: Huntsville.The current score is below the 70 average for 4 rated districts in Trinity County.The current score is below the 82.6 average for 139 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
Strengths and momentum
Current strength
Four-Year Graduation Rate above the similar-context average
100%+2.6 pts vs 97.4%
100% is 2.6 percentage points above
the 97.4% average among 153 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure (standard accountability only).
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 district.
Read the full rating context and placement
Centerville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 69 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 85.9 average for 161 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 159th of 161 rated districts serving a similar economic context.
Centerville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 69 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 80.2 average for 55 rated districts in Region 06: Huntsville. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Centerville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 69 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 70 average for 4 rated districts in Trinity County. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Centerville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 69 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.6 average for 139 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 125th of 139 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 5 others).
Centerville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 69 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Dated TEA notices for campuses in this district. They are shown separately from the district rating because they describe specific campuses, support programs and transfer eligibility.
Campuses identified for federal improvement support
1
2026 TEA list
Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0
2026–27 school year
Share of campuses identified for improvement
This district
100.0%
Selected comparison
12.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
+87.9 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
0.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
−0.2 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Centerville ISD
Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Selected comparison percentages describe how common each dated campus notice is across reporting districts in that group. They are neutral prevalence context; changing the comparison never changes a campus's official status.
Follow the solid line to see how this district 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 B with 88 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 Achievement76 C−10.9 vs similar economic context · 161 reporting
School Progress65 D−16.2 vs similar economic context · 161 reporting
Closing the Gaps53 F−30.6 vs similar economic context · 161 reporting
Academic Growth57 F−19.4 vs similar economic context · 161 reporting
Relative Performance65 D−14.9 vs similar economic context · 161 reporting
Centerville ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (161 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
76
C
4
School Progress
65
D
5
Closing the Gaps
53
F
7
Academic Growth
57
F
3
Relative Performance
65
D
5
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 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 district that better measure is Student Achievement (76), so
School Progress (65) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 76.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level75%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Meets grade level36%−23 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Masters grade level5%−21 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level73%−11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Meets grade level30%−34 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Masters grade level2%−25 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level75%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Meets grade level35%−18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Masters grade level6%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level75%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 reporting
Meets grade level39%−23 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 reporting
Masters grade level11%−20 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level78%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 157 reporting
Meets grade level56%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 157 reporting
Masters grade level6%−20 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 157 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (161 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%+2.6 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
91.7%−6.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 152 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
91.7%−6.1 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.3 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 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
69.0%−21.9 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
69.0%
90.9%
−21.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
53.8%
61.0%
−7.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
23.1%
37.3%
−14.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
0.0%
11.2%
−11.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
15.4%
40.5%
−25.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
7.7%
39.8%
−32.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
7.7%
0.8%
+6.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
2.1%
−2.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
5.8%
−5.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
0.0%
2.6%
−2.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
23.1%
7.6%
+15.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
0.0%
3.4%
−3.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 153 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 fordistricts 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
143
Economically disadvantaged
32.9%−2.3 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
0.0%−6.1 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
23.1%+6.3 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.7%−0.7 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
20.1%+9.9 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Centerville ISD
White 98.6%
Two or More Races 1.4%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting for every category shown · 161 in full cohort
African American 3.9%
Hispanic 26.8%
White 63.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.7%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 06: Huntsville · 55 reporting for every category shown · 55 in full cohort
African American 11.3%
Hispanic 31.2%
White 51.7%
American Indian 0.6%
Asian 0.9%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Trinity County · 4 reporting for every category shown · 4 in full cohort
African American 6.3%
Hispanic 12.5%
White 76.8%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.7%
Two or More Races 3.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 139 reporting for every category shown · 139 in full cohort
African American 3.1%
Hispanic 37.9%
White 55.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.1%
Statewide average1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
African American 6.3%
Hispanic 43.1%
White 45.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.3%
Student counts behind the percentages
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
Students in this TEA accountability summary
143
Economically disadvantaged students
47
Emergent bilingual students
0
Special education students
33
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 143 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 2 (1.4%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
143
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−2
Decrease · −1.4%
Change since 2021–22
+5
Increase · +3.6%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
143
Selected comparison
4,312.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Centerville ISD
School year
Students enrolledCenterville ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
138
First available year
4,215.8
2022–23
147
Increase of 9 (6.5%)
4,287.1
2023–24
155
Increase of 8 (5.4%)
4,311.4
2024–25
145
Decrease of 10 (6.5%)
4,337.7
2025–26
143
Decrease of 2 (1.4%)
4,312.1
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.
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
Suppressed
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
29
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
Not available
Arithmetic context only
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
29
Selected comparison
355.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 152 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Centerville ISD
School year
Transfers inCenterville ISD
Transfers outCenterville ISD
In minus outCenterville ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
22
28
−6
190.4
282.2
−100
2022–23
15
25
−10
189.2
300.9
−119
2023–24
12
18
−6
191.6
316.1
−131
2024–25
Suppressed
27
Not available
—
341.1
—
2025–26
Suppressed
29
Not available
—
355.2
—
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Groveton ISD 22890114
Apple Springs ISD 22890510
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 5 counterpart counts and masked 3.
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
Not reported
Rate not available
Disciplinary actions
Not reported
Rate not available
Cumulative year-end enrollment
164
2024–25
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Centerville ISD
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
149
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2021–22
151
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2022–23
167
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2023–24
171
10
5.8%
24
14.04
8.5%
17.8
2024–25
164
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Centerville ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
In-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Out-of-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized 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
802
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
128
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
18
14.1%
School-age child poverty rate
14.1%
18 of 128
Boundary population
This district
802
Selected comparison
26,915.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
128
Selected comparison
4,810.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
18
Selected comparison
363.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
14.1%
Selected comparison
10.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
+3.7 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
6.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 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
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.
Centerville ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$20,400
Selected comparison
$23,852
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
−$3,452 vs similar economic context
This district spends $10,697 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $1,428 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Centerville ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$14,678
$22,035
$13,054
$14,779
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
2019
$13,919
$21,900
$13,108
$15,005
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
2020
$13,055
$21,220
$14,058
$15,783
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
2021
$16,008
$17,863
$14,797
$16,417
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 160 rated districts reporting
2022
$19,039
$28,874
$15,708
$17,906
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
2023
$22,869
$35,111
$16,792
$18,733
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
2024
$17,967
$33,004
$18,125
$21,676
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
2025
$20,400
$31,097
$18,972
$23,852
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 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
$68,362+$2,565 vs similar economic context
Teachers
16−280.0 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
9.2−3.9 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Centerville ISD
Beginning 6.4%
1 to 5 years 12.2%
6 to 10 years 12.2%
11 to 20 years 28.2%
21 to 30 years 24.4%
Over 30 years 16.7%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 reporting for every category shown · 161 in full cohort
Beginning 4.7%
1 to 5 years 20.2%
6 to 10 years 18.3%
11 to 20 years 32.9%
21 to 30 years 19%
Over 30 years 4.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 06: Huntsville · 55 reporting for every category shown · 55 in full cohort
Beginning 6.3%
1 to 5 years 26.4%
6 to 10 years 16.6%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 16%
Over 30 years 5.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Trinity County · 4 reporting for every category shown · 4 in full cohort
Beginning 7.3%
1 to 5 years 29.7%
6 to 10 years 9.8%
11 to 20 years 30.2%
21 to 30 years 16%
Over 30 years 7.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 139 reporting for every category shown · 139 in full cohort
Beginning 8.3%
1 to 5 years 23.6%
6 to 10 years 15.4%
11 to 20 years 27.1%
21 to 30 years 18.1%
Over 30 years 7.5%
Statewide average1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
Beginning 6.4%
1 to 5 years 23.9%
6 to 10 years 17.7%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 17.7%
Over 30 years 5.5%
Teacher turnover over time
TEA reported a 0.0% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
18.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 161 rated districts reporting
−18.5 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Centerville ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateCenterville ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
5.9%
13.4%
2021–22
11.8%
17.3%
2022–23
23.5%
18.5%
2023–24
9.0%
18.2%
2024–25
0.0%
18.5%
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.
Out of 160 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.
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
2 measures
2of 54
Earned a level I or level II certificate
Region 06: Huntsville · of the 54 that report this measure
3of 54
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Region 06: Huntsville · of the 54 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.