+1.0 ptsvs 80 average · 376 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
166 of 376tied with 21 others
Score vs region
−3.6 ptsvs 84.6 average · 37 rated districts in Region 09: Wichita Falls
Region 09: Wichita Falls placement
25 of 37tied with 3 others
Score vs county
+2.8 ptsvs 78.2 average · 5 rated districts in Wichita County
Score vs similar-size group
+0.1 ptsvs 80.9 average · 261 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
128 of 261tied with 21 others
Score vs state
−0.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
539 of 1,019tied with 52 others
B81
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is flat; under the rules in force back then it scored 87 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 80 average for 376 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 84.6 average for 37 rated districts in Region 09: Wichita Falls.The current score is above the 78.2 average for 5 rated districts in Wichita County.The current score is level with the 80.9 average for 261 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
98.6%+2.2 pts vs 96.4%
98.6% is 2.2 percentage points above
the 96.4% average among 362 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
City View ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 81 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80 average for 376 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 166th of 376 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 21 others).
City View ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 81 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 84.6 average for 37 rated districts in Region 09: Wichita Falls. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
City View ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 81 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 78.2 average for 5 rated districts in Wichita County. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
City View ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 81 out of 100 for 2025-26 — level with the 80.9 average for 261 similarly sized rated districts. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 128th of 261 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 21 others).
City View ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 81 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
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 87 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 Achievement81 B+1.8 vs similar economic context · 376 reporting
School Progress82 B+1.3 vs similar economic context · 376 reporting
Closing the Gaps77 C−0.1 vs similar economic context · 375 reporting
Academic Growth68 D−2.9 vs similar economic context · 376 reporting
Relative Performance82 B+1.7 vs similar economic context · 376 reporting
City View ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (376 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
81
B
9
School Progress
82
B
8
Closing the Gaps
77
C
3
Academic Growth
68
D
2
Relative Performance
82
B
8
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 3 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 School Progress (82), so
Student Achievement (81) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 82.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level76%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Meets grade level48%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Masters grade level15%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level79%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Meets grade level52%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Masters grade level15%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level74%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Meets grade level44%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Masters grade level13%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level78%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 373 reporting
Meets grade level52%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 373 reporting
Masters grade level15%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 373 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level68%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 370 reporting
Meets grade level43%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 370 reporting
Masters grade level19%±0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 370 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (376 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
98.6%+2.2 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 362 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
95.2%−1.6 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 361 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
95.7%−0.8 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 359 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 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
86.0%−3.1 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
86.0%
89.1%
−3.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 362 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
20.8%
57.1%
−36.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
19.5%
24.3%
−4.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
3.9%
5.6%
−1.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
16.9%
32.5%
−15.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
70.1%
44.0%
+26.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
1.8%
−1.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
3.7%
−3.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
2.5%
−2.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
1.3%
3.5%
−2.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
14.3%
9.2%
+5.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
9.1%
3.7%
+5.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 365 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
59
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
30
50.8% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
29
49.2% of graduates
Not trackable
0
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
59
Selected comparison
415.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 274 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
30
Selected comparison
177.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 274 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
50.8%
Selected comparison
43.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 274 rated districts reporting
+7.4 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
49.2%
Selected comparison
53.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 274 rated districts reporting
−3.9 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
3.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 274 rated districts reporting
−3.5 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERSITY (003592)10
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (003594)5
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
1,170
Economically disadvantaged
67.7%+1.0 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
3.3%−10.4 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
22.3%+3.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.0%+0.7 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
13.1%−3.1 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
City View ISD
African American 10.7%
Hispanic 35.8%
White 41.8%
American Indian 1%
Asian 0.7%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 9.8%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting for every category shown · 376 in full cohort
African American 6.7%
Hispanic 47.4%
White 41.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 09: Wichita Falls · 37 reporting for every category shown · 37 in full cohort
African American 2.2%
Hispanic 25.6%
White 66.3%
American Indian 0.6%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Wichita County · 5 reporting for every category shown · 5 in full cohort
African American 8.1%
Hispanic 24.8%
White 58%
American Indian 0.7%
Asian 0.9%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 7.3%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 261 reporting for every category shown · 261 in full cohort
African American 5.5%
Hispanic 41.3%
White 48.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.6%
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
1,169
Economically disadvantaged students
791
Emergent bilingual students
39
Special education students
261
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 1,170 students in 2025–26, an increase of 18 (1.6%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
1,170
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+18
Increase · +1.6%
Change since 2021–22
+49
Increase · +4.4%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
1,170
Selected comparison
4,324.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for City View ISD
School year
Students enrolledCity View ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
1,121
First available year
4,421
2022–23
1,133
Increase of 12 (1.1%)
4,455.5
2023–24
1,170
Increase of 37 (3.3%)
4,429.3
2024–25
1,152
Decrease of 18 (1.5%)
4,416
2025–26
1,170
Increase of 18 (1.6%)
4,324.5
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
352
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
98
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
+254
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
352
Selected comparison
290.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 353 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
98
Selected comparison
695
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 361 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
+254
Selected comparison
−448
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 341 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for City View ISD
School year
Transfers inCity View ISD
Transfers outCity View ISD
In minus outCity View ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
253
91
+162
203.3
563.7
−403
2022–23
293
98
+195
229
597.8
−412
2023–24
326
90
+236
247.1
649.1
−441
2024–25
345
112
+233
278.5
675.6
−431
2025–26
352
98
+254
290.4
695
−448
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Wichita Falls ISD 243905248
Burkburnett ISD 24390152
Iowa Park CISD 24390338
Top reported flows only. TEA published 3 of 7 counterpart counts and masked 4.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Wichita Falls ISD 24390540
Iowa Park CISD 24390320
Premier High Schools 07280118
Top reported flows only. TEA published 3 of 10 counterpart counts and masked 7.
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
246
19.4% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
585
46.10 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
1,269
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
19.4%
Selected comparison
11.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 340 rated districts reporting
+7.9 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
46.1
Selected comparison
26
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 351 rated districts reporting
+20.1 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for City View 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
1,140
230
20.2%
498
43.68
8.7%
18
2021–22
1,219
258
21.2%
460
37.74
11.8%
26.8
2022–23
1,257
230
18.3%
438
34.84
12.2%
28.5
2023–24
1,263
277
21.9%
668
52.89
11.9%
27.8
2024–25
1,269
246
19.4%
585
46.10
11.5%
26
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for City View ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
246
19.4%
585
46.10
11.5%
26
In-school suspensions
223
17.6%
445
35.07
9.9%
19.1
Out-of-school suspensions
63
5.0%
84
6.62
3.9%
6.1
DAEP placements
50
3.9%
55
4.33
2.8%
3.4
Mandatory DAEP placements
18
1.4%
20
1.58
1.7%
2
Discretionary DAEP placements
34
2.7%
35
2.76
1.5%
1.8
JJAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Mandatory JJAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
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
4,600
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
860
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
124
14.4%
School-age child poverty rate
14.4%
124 of 860
Boundary population
This district
4,600
Selected comparison
27,858.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 375 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
860
Selected comparison
4,943.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 375 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
124
Selected comparison
974.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 375 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
14.4%
Selected comparison
19.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 375 rated districts reporting
−5.1 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.
2 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
2
Selected comparison
7.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 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
1
K-12
1
Browse all 2 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.
City View ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$21,777
Selected comparison
$23,037
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
−$1,260 vs similar economic context
This district spends $2,016 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $2,805 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
City View ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$13,577
$13,246
$13,054
$14,031
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
2019
$13,553
$12,865
$13,108
$14,388
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
2020
$19,003
$13,729
$14,058
$15,483
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
2021
$21,999
$14,629
$14,797
$16,493
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
2022
$20,643
$15,859
$15,708
$17,960
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
2023
$18,877
$17,414
$16,792
$19,570
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
2024
$19,002
$19,844
$18,125
$21,162
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
2025
$21,777
$19,761
$18,972
$23,037
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 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
$61,803−$2,054 vs similar economic context
Teachers
92−197.3 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
12.8−0.2 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
City View ISD
Beginning 1.1%
1 to 5 years 21.9%
6 to 10 years 13.2%
11 to 20 years 38.8%
21 to 30 years 23.9%
Over 30 years 1.1%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting for every category shown · 376 in full cohort
Beginning 7.3%
1 to 5 years 25.9%
6 to 10 years 17.5%
11 to 20 years 26.8%
21 to 30 years 16.9%
Over 30 years 5.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 09: Wichita Falls · 37 reporting for every category shown · 37 in full cohort
Beginning 7.3%
1 to 5 years 20.3%
6 to 10 years 15.8%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 21%
Over 30 years 6.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Wichita County · 5 reporting for every category shown · 5 in full cohort
Beginning 4.3%
1 to 5 years 20.8%
6 to 10 years 17.6%
11 to 20 years 32%
21 to 30 years 19.6%
Over 30 years 5.7%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 261 reporting for every category shown · 261 in full cohort
Beginning 5.6%
1 to 5 years 23.2%
6 to 10 years 17.2%
11 to 20 years 29.2%
21 to 30 years 18.8%
Over 30 years 5.6%
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 25.5% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
25.5%
Selected comparison
22.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
+2.6 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for City View ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateCity View ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
25.0%
17.9%
2021–22
27.0%
21.8%
2022–23
19.2%
25.3%
2023–24
28.5%
22.4%
2024–25
25.5%
22.9%
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 36
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 36 that report this measure · tied with 1
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
3 measures
8of 36
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 36 that report this measure
8of 36
Earned an industry-based certification
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 36 that report this measure
10of 36
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 36 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.