+1.3 ptsvs 83.7 average · 296 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
121 of 296tied with 13 others
Score vs region
+4.8 ptsvs 80.2 average · 55 rated districts in Region 06: Huntsville
Region 06: Huntsville placement
17 of 55tied with 3 others
Score vs county
+3.5 ptsvs 81.5 average · 6 rated districts in Montgomery County
Score vs similar-size group
+1.2 ptsvs 83.8 average · 21 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
9 of 21tied with 1 other
Score vs state
+3.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
350 of 1,019tied with 50 others
B85
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 89 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 83.7 average for 296 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 80.2 average for 55 rated districts in Region 06: Huntsville.The current score is above the 81.5 average for 6 rated districts in Montgomery County.The current score is above the 83.8 average for 21 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is above 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
62%vs 54.5% avg · +7.5 pts
Masters
33%vs 22.5% avg · +10.5 pts
Among 296 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
Conroe ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 83.7 average for 296 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 121st of 296 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 13 others).
Conroe ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.2 average for 55 rated districts in Region 06: Huntsville. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Conroe ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.5 average for 6 rated districts in Montgomery County. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Conroe ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 83.8 average for 21 similarly sized rated districts. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 9th of 21 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 1 other).
Conroe ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is up 2 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
11
2026 TEA list
Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0
2026–27 school year
Share of campuses identified for improvement
This district
16.2%
Selected comparison
15.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
+1.0 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
1.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
−1.1 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Conroe ISD
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 89 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 Achievement85 B+0.7 vs similar economic context · 296 reporting
School Progress83 B+1.5 vs similar economic context · 296 reporting
Closing the Gaps84 B+2.4 vs similar economic context · 295 reporting
Academic Growth77 C+2.4 vs similar economic context · 296 reporting
Relative Performance83 B+2.4 vs similar economic context · 296 reporting
Conroe ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (296 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
85
B
5
School Progress
83
B
7
Closing the Gaps
84
B
6
Academic Growth
77
C
3
Relative Performance
83
B
7
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 5 points below A 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 (85), so
School Progress (83) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 85.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level81%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Meets grade level62%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Masters grade level33%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level81%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Meets grade level64%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Masters grade level31%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level80%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Meets grade level58%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Masters grade level29%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level85%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 295 reporting
Meets grade level65%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 295 reporting
Masters grade level40%+13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 295 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level83%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 287 reporting
Meets grade level63%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 287 reporting
Masters grade level39%+15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 287 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (296 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
97.7%+1.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
98.4%+1.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 282 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
98.4%+1.8 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 281 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.3%±0.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 284 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
80.0%−9.4 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
80.0%
89.4%
−9.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 282 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
56.4%
58.1%
−1.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
44.6%
31.5%
+13.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
33.8%
8.5%
+25.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
33.4%
37.9%
−4.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
29.3%
41.7%
−12.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.1%
1.5%
−1.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
2.6%
−2.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
1.9%
4.6%
−2.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
3.7%
2.9%
+0.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
4.7%
7.7%
−3.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
2.3%
3.3%
−1.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 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
5,047
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
2,038
40.4% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
2,294
45.5% of graduates
Not trackable
715
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
5,047
Selected comparison
459.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 225 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
2,038
Selected comparison
205.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 225 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
40.4%
Selected comparison
48.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 225 rated districts reporting
−8.5 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
45.5%
Selected comparison
47.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 225 rated districts reporting
−2.2 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
14.2%
Selected comparison
3.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 225 rated districts reporting
+10.8 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
LONE STAR COLLEGE - MONTGOMERY (000721)717
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY (003632)203
SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY (003606)163
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
72,757
Economically disadvantaged
44.4%−1.4 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
20.2%+12.3 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
15.3%−2.5 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.0%±0.0 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
12.9%+0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Conroe ISD
African American 11%
Hispanic 40.8%
White 37.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 5.7%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.7%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting for every category shown · 296 in full cohort
African American 4.3%
Hispanic 32.5%
White 57.7%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 1.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.6%
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 Montgomery County · 6 reporting for every category shown · 6 in full cohort
African American 7.6%
Hispanic 42.2%
White 44.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 2%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 21 reporting for every category shown · 21 in full cohort
African American 14.5%
Hispanic 50.8%
White 19.5%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 10.9%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.8%
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
72,218
Economically disadvantaged students
32,037
Emergent bilingual students
14,577
Special education students
11,021
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 72,757 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 157 (0.2%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
72,757
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−157
Decrease · −0.2%
Change since 2021–22
+4,996
Increase · +7.4%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
72,757
Selected comparison
4,850.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Conroe ISD
School year
Students enrolledConroe ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
67,761
First available year
4,727.7
2022–23
70,783
Increase of 3,022 (4.5%)
4,821.3
2023–24
72,352
Increase of 1,569 (2.2%)
4,851.8
2024–25
72,914
Increase of 562 (0.8%)
4,881
2025–26
72,757
Decrease of 157 (0.2%)
4,850.8
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
728
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
3,398
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−2,670
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
728
Selected comparison
270.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 286 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
3,398
Selected comparison
551.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 275 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−2,670
Selected comparison
−285
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Conroe ISD
School year
Transfers inConroe ISD
Transfers outConroe ISD
In minus outConroe ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
636
1,947
−1,311
221.2
420.3
−207
2022–23
651
2,460
−1,809
223.6
464.6
−246
2023–24
672
2,693
−2,021
233.8
470.4
−245
2024–25
706
3,187
−2,481
253
532.8
−285
2025–26
728
3,398
−2,670
270.8
551.5
−285
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Willis ISD 170904145
Spring ISD 101919126
Klein ISD 101915122
Magnolia ISD 17090694
Montgomery ISD 17090352
Top reported flows only. TEA published 12 of 22 counterpart counts and masked 10.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Texas College Preparatory Academies 2218011,207
Montgomery ISD 170903307
School of Science and Technology 015827252
Hallsville ISD 102904244
Willis ISD 170904156
Top reported flows only. TEA published 27 of 62 counterpart counts and masked 35.
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
6,421
8.4% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
15,812
20.63 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
76,646
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
8.4%
Selected comparison
9.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 260 rated districts reporting
−1.0 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
20.63
Selected comparison
19.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 266 rated districts reporting
+0.9 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Conroe 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
68,811
3,175
4.6%
6,597
9.59
7.6%
14.4
2021–22
72,659
5,348
7.4%
13,186
18.15
9.5%
19.9
2022–23
74,904
5,729
7.7%
13,954
18.63
10.0%
21.1
2023–24
76,323
6,343
8.3%
16,093
21.09
9.8%
21.3
2024–25
76,646
6,421
8.4%
15,812
20.63
9.4%
19.7
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Conroe ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
6,421
8.4%
15,812
20.63
9.4%
19.7
In-school suspensions
5,623
7.3%
11,743
15.32
8.2%
14.9
Out-of-school suspensions
1,737
2.3%
2,490
3.25
2.8%
4
DAEP placements
1,256
1.6%
1,475
1.92
2.1%
2.5
Mandatory DAEP placements
1,134
1.5%
1,307
1.71
1.4%
1.6
Discretionary DAEP placements
159
0.2%
168
0.22
1.1%
1.2
JJAEP placements
90
0.1%
92
0.12
0.1%
0.1
Mandatory JJAEP placements
21
0.0%
21
0.03
0.0%
0
Discretionary JJAEP placements
70
0.1%
71
0.09
0.2%
0.2
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
418,443
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
80,444
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
6,898
8.6%
School-age child poverty rate
8.6%
6,898 of 80,444
Boundary population
This district
418,443
Selected comparison
30,244.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
80,444
Selected comparison
5,333.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
6,898
Selected comparison
589.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
8.6%
Selected comparison
13.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
−5.0 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.
68 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
68
Selected comparison
7.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 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
40
Middle / Jr. High
18
High School
7
K-12
3
Browse all 68 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.
Conroe ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$20,990
Selected comparison
$23,092
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
−$2,102 vs similar economic context
This district spends $2,607 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $2,018 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Conroe ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$12,724
$12,916
$13,054
$14,080
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
2019
$12,027
$12,976
$13,108
$14,224
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
2020
$11,626
$13,925
$14,058
$15,408
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
2021
$13,576
$14,752
$14,797
$16,357
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
2022
$14,960
$15,436
$15,708
$17,940
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
2023
$15,772
$16,223
$16,792
$19,661
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
2024
$16,120
$17,513
$18,125
$22,126
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
2025
$20,990
$18,383
$18,972
$23,092
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 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
$69,598+$4,336 vs similar economic context
Teachers
4,793+4460.1 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
15.1+2.4 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Conroe ISD
Beginning 6.2%
1 to 5 years 25.7%
6 to 10 years 22.3%
11 to 20 years 30.8%
21 to 30 years 12.9%
Over 30 years 2.1%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 reporting for every category shown · 296 in full cohort
Beginning 5.4%
1 to 5 years 22.1%
6 to 10 years 17.7%
11 to 20 years 30.6%
21 to 30 years 18.8%
Over 30 years 5.3%
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 Montgomery County · 6 reporting for every category shown · 6 in full cohort
Beginning 7.6%
1 to 5 years 31.2%
6 to 10 years 21.5%
11 to 20 years 25.9%
21 to 30 years 11.8%
Over 30 years 2.1%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 21 reporting for every category shown · 21 in full cohort
Beginning 5.8%
1 to 5 years 25%
6 to 10 years 20.6%
11 to 20 years 30.3%
21 to 30 years 15.5%
Over 30 years 2.7%
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 14.8% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
14.8%
Selected comparison
18.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 296 rated districts reporting
−4.1 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Conroe ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateConroe ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
12.1%
15.0%
2021–22
13.9%
18.2%
2022–23
16.2%
20.6%
2023–24
16.6%
19.8%
2024–25
14.8%
18.9%
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
5 measures
2of 21
Four-Year Graduation Rate
Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 21 that report this measure
2of 21
Five-Year Graduation Rate
Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 21 that report this measure
2of 21
Six-Year Graduation Rate
Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 21 that report this measure
2of 21
Dropout Rate (lowest is best)
Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 21 that report this measure
3of 54
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
Region 06: Huntsville · of the 54 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
25 measures
4of 55
All Subjects — Masters
Region 06: Huntsville · of the 55 that report this measure
4of 55
Math — Masters
Region 06: Huntsville · of the 55 that report this measure
4of 21
Math — Meets
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
4of 21
Science — Meets
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 21
Science — Masters
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
4of 21
Attendance
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
4of 21
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
4of 21
Per-student spending
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
5of 21
All Subjects — Meets
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 1
5of 21
Math — Approaches
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
5of 21
Social Studies — Meets
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
5of 21
Social Studies — Masters
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 2
5of 21
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
5of 21
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
6of 55
Reading — Masters
Region 06: Huntsville · of the 55 that report this measure · tied with 2
6of 21
Social Studies — Approaches
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
7of 21
Student Achievement
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
7of 21
Earned an industry-based certification
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
8of 21
Reading — Meets
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 1
8of 21
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
9of 21
Overall score
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 1
9of 21
School Progress
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 2
9of 21
Closing the Gaps
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure
9of 21
Relative Performance
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 1
9of 21
Reading — Approaches
Similar size · of the 21 that report this measure · tied with 1
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.