−1.7 ptsvs 77.7 average · 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
127 of 216tied with 13 others
Score vs region
−5.3 ptsvs 81.3 average · 94 rated districts in Region 07: Kilgore
Region 07: Kilgore placement
71 of 94tied with 4 others
Score vs county
−6.1 ptsvs 82.1 average · 8 rated districts in Smith County
Score vs similar-size group
−3.9 ptsvs 79.9 average · 147 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
99 of 147tied with 8 others
Score vs state
−5.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
777 of 1,019tied with 40 others
C76
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 85 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 77.7 average for 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 81.3 average for 94 rated districts in Region 07: Kilgore.The current score is below the 82.1 average for 8 rated districts in Smith County.The current score is below the 79.9 average for 147 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
STAAR result
All Subjects above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters
Meets
41%vs 39.6% avg · +1.4 pts
Masters
15%vs 13.6% avg · +1.4 pts
Among 216 districts 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 district.
Read the full rating context and placement
Chapel Hill ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 77.7 average for 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 7 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 127th of 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 13 others).
Chapel Hill ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.3 average for 94 rated districts in Region 07: Kilgore. It is up 7 points since 2021-22.
Chapel Hill ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.1 average for 8 rated districts in Smith County. It is up 7 points since 2021-22.
Chapel Hill ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 79.9 average for 147 similarly sized rated districts. It is up 7 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 99th of 147 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 8 others).
Chapel Hill ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is up 7 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
2
2026 TEA list
Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0
2026–27 school year
Share of campuses identified for improvement
This district
40.0%
Selected comparison
31.0%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
+9.0 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
8.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
−8.7 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Chapel Hill ISD
Additional Targeted Support · White, Special Education
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 85 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 Achievement75 C+0.4 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
School Progress80 B+1.3 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
Closing the Gaps65 D−9.6 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
Academic Growth62 D−7.4 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
Relative Performance80 B+1.6 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
Chapel Hill ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (216 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
75
C
5
School Progress
80
B
10
Closing the Gaps
65
D
5
Academic Growth
62
D
8
Relative Performance
80
B
10
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 5 points below C in that domain — the nearest of the measures that count toward the overall rating.
TEA does not add the domains up. The overall score is the better of Student
Achievement and School Progress at 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. For this district that better measure is School Progress (80), so
Student Achievement (75) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 80.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level67%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Meets grade level41%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Masters grade level15%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level66%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Meets grade level43%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Masters grade level15%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level63%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Meets grade level33%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Masters grade level12%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level75%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 reporting
Meets grade level47%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 reporting
Masters grade level20%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level68%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 reporting
Meets grade level50%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 reporting
Masters grade level23%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (216 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
98.7%+3.8 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 209 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
98.8%+3.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
99.6%+4.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.9 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 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
90.0%+4.2 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
90.0%
85.8%
+4.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 209 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
69.4%
52.4%
+17.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
32.2%
20.9%
+11.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
1.6%
6.6%
−5.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
29.4%
30.5%
−1.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
71.4%
42.3%
+29.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
2.9%
−2.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
9.4%
4.6%
+4.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
3.2%
−3.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
6.5%
3.6%
+2.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
8.2%
9.9%
−1.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
1.6%
3.1%
−1.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 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.
After high school: the following fall
Where district graduates appeared in Texas public higher-education records the fall after graduation. This is a limited next-step measure, not an eventual college-going or completion rate.
Graduates in the report
255
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
128
50.2% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
120
47.1% of graduates
Not trackable
7
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
255
Selected comparison
662
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
128
Selected comparison
278.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
50.2%
Selected comparison
42.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting
+8.1 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
47.1%
Selected comparison
53.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting
−6.4 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
2.7%
Selected comparison
4.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting
−1.7 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGE (003648)57
U. OF TEXAS AT TYLER (011163)48
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIV (003624)6
Selected comparison counts are neutral cohort scale context. The percentages put differently sized graduating classes on the same basis, but still cover only the limited Texas-public system observed by this report.
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, high-school graduates enrolled in higher education, fetched 24 August 2026. The report covers graduates who enrolled in a Texas public college or university the following fall and includes only districts or campuses with more than 25 graduates.
“Not found” does not mean a graduate did not continue their education. It can include private or out-of-state college, work, military service, enrollment after the fall term, or another path the Texas public system does not observe.
“Not trackable” is not an outcome. THECB uses it for graduates with a non-standard identifier that could not be matched to higher-education records.
Who this district serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Students
3,186
Economically disadvantaged
83.1%+1.8 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
27.2%+5.9 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
18.5%+0.3 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
93.5%+0.2 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
20.8%−0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Chapel Hill ISD
African American 18.9%
Hispanic 53.7%
White 21.8%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.7%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.6%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting for every category shown · 216 in full cohort
African American 11.7%
Hispanic 65.7%
White 18.9%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 07: Kilgore · 94 reporting for every category shown · 94 in full cohort
African American 10.3%
Hispanic 24%
White 60.1%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Smith County · 8 reporting for every category shown · 8 in full cohort
African American 13.8%
Hispanic 27.7%
White 52.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 147 reporting for every category shown · 147 in full cohort
African American 7.9%
Hispanic 47.8%
White 39.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.3%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.5%
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
3,186
Economically disadvantaged students
2,646
Emergent bilingual students
866
Special education students
588
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 3,186 students in 2025–26, an increase of 114 (3.7%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
3,186
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+114
Increase · +3.7%
Change since 2021–22
−211
Decrease · −6.2%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
3,186
Selected comparison
7,258.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Chapel Hill ISD
School year
Students enrolledChapel Hill ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
3,397
First available year
7,693.6
2022–23
3,308
Decrease of 89 (2.6%)
7,697.4
2023–24
3,270
Decrease of 38 (1.1%)
7,592.2
2024–25
3,072
Decrease of 198 (6.1%)
7,501.4
2025–26
3,186
Increase of 114 (3.7%)
7,258.6
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
189
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
617
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−428
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
189
Selected comparison
443
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 189 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
617
Selected comparison
1,596.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−428
Selected comparison
−1,358
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 185 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Chapel Hill ISD
School year
Transfers inChapel Hill ISD
Transfers outChapel Hill ISD
In minus outChapel Hill ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
160
475
−315
298.8
1,382.3
−1,235
2022–23
148
503
−355
344.6
1,453.2
−1,285
2023–24
155
621
−466
371.6
1,537.4
−1,328
2024–25
156
663
−507
409.9
1,577
−1,341
2025–26
189
617
−428
443
1,596.4
−1,358
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Tyler ISD 212905119
Arp ISD 21290122
Whitehouse ISD 21290614
Top reported flows only. TEA published 3 of 15 counterpart counts and masked 12.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Tyler ISD 212905155
UT Tyler University Academy 212804102
Arp ISD 21290182
Cumberland Academy 21280174
Whitehouse ISD 21290664
Top reported flows only. TEA published 9 of 26 counterpart counts and masked 17.
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
397
11.8% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
932
27.71 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
3,364
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
11.8%
Selected comparison
12.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 204 rated districts reporting
−0.9 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
27.71
Selected comparison
31
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 206 rated districts reporting
−3.3 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Chapel Hill 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
3,696
356
9.6%
810
21.92
7.8%
15.7
2021–22
3,660
540
14.8%
1,459
39.86
13.2%
31.6
2022–23
3,584
448
12.5%
1,017
28.38
13.8%
34.5
2023–24
3,517
497
14.1%
1,151
32.73
13.4%
33.1
2024–25
3,364
397
11.8%
932
27.71
12.7%
31
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Chapel Hill ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
397
11.8%
932
27.71
12.7%
31
In-school suspensions
355
10.6%
692
20.57
10.4%
20.7
Out-of-school suspensions
83
2.5%
101
3.00
5.2%
8.6
DAEP placements
113
3.4%
139
4.13
3.2%
3.9
Mandatory DAEP placements
77
2.3%
90
2.68
1.8%
2.1
Discretionary DAEP placements
45
1.3%
49
1.46
1.8%
2.1
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
24,230
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
3,976
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
875
22.0%
School-age child poverty rate
22.0%
875 of 3,976
Boundary population
This district
24,230
Selected comparison
48,927.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
3,976
Selected comparison
8,882.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
875
Selected comparison
2,151.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
22.0%
Selected comparison
23.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting
−1.9 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.
5 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
5
Selected comparison
12.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 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.
Elementary
3
High School
1
Middle / Jr. High
1
Browse all 5 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.
Chapel Hill ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$42,996
Selected comparison
$22,903
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
+$20,093 vs similar economic context
This district spends $23,506 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $24,024 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Chapel Hill ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$10,354
$12,629
$13,054
$14,395
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2019
$11,153
$12,702
$13,108
$14,511
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2020
$10,811
$13,696
$14,058
$15,874
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2021
$13,337
$14,225
$14,797
$17,250
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2022
$13,891
$15,710
$15,708
$19,518
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2023
$13,940
$16,917
$16,792
$21,958
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2024
$21,895
$18,225
$18,125
$21,963
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2025
$42,996
$19,490
$18,972
$22,903
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 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
$62,201−$2,439 vs similar economic context
Teachers
226−267.0 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
14.1+0.1 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Chapel Hill ISD
Beginning 8%
1 to 5 years 23.9%
6 to 10 years 22.1%
11 to 20 years 31.5%
21 to 30 years 10.4%
Over 30 years 4%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting for every category shown · 216 in full cohort
Beginning 7.4%
1 to 5 years 27.5%
6 to 10 years 17.8%
11 to 20 years 25.6%
21 to 30 years 16.1%
Over 30 years 5.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 07: Kilgore · 94 reporting for every category shown · 94 in full cohort
Beginning 5.4%
1 to 5 years 22.7%
6 to 10 years 17.3%
11 to 20 years 28.8%
21 to 30 years 19.1%
Over 30 years 6.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Smith County · 8 reporting for every category shown · 8 in full cohort
Beginning 6.6%
1 to 5 years 21.6%
6 to 10 years 17.2%
11 to 20 years 30.2%
21 to 30 years 19.8%
Over 30 years 4.6%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 147 reporting for every category shown · 147 in full cohort
Beginning 5.1%
1 to 5 years 25.9%
6 to 10 years 18.9%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 16.6%
Over 30 years 4.7%
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 22.8% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
22.8%
Selected comparison
23.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
−0.4 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Chapel Hill ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateChapel Hill ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
17.1%
18.8%
2021–22
27.9%
21.9%
2022–23
34.4%
26.1%
2023–24
28.3%
23.6%
2024–25
22.8%
23.2%
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
1 measure
2of 94
Per-student spending
Region 07: Kilgore · of the 94 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
2 measures
6of 91
Earned an associate degree
Region 07: Kilgore · of the 91 that report this measure
9of 147
Earned an industry-based certification
Similar size · of the 147 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.