+0.1 ptsvs 78.9 average · 334 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
169 of 334tied with 11 others
Score vs region
−3.7 ptsvs 82.7 average · 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant
Region 08: Mt Pleasant placement
33 of 46tied with 2 others
Score vs county
+5.5 ptsvs 73.5 average · 2 rated districts in Delta County
Score vs similar-size group
−3.1 ptsvs 82.1 average · 271 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
187 of 271tied with 11 others
Score vs state
−2.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
645 of 1,019tied with 39 others
C79
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 86 in 2021-22. The current score is level with the 78.9 average for 334 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 82.7 average for 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant.The current score is above the 73.5 average for 2 rated districts in Delta County.The current score is below the 82.1 average for 271 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
47%vs 43.1% avg · +3.9 pts
Masters
17%vs 15.1% avg · +1.9 pts
Among 334 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
Cooper ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 79 out of 100 for 2025-26 — level with the 78.9 average for 334 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 169th of 334 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 11 others).
Cooper ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 79 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.7 average for 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Cooper ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 79 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 73.5 average for 2 rated districts in Delta County. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Cooper ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 79 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.1 average for 271 similarly sized rated districts. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 187th of 271 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 11 others).
Cooper ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 79 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below 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
1
2026 TEA list
Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0
2026–27 school year
Share of campuses identified for improvement
This district
33.3%
Selected comparison
28.0%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
+5.3 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
5.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
−5.4 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Cooper ISD
Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Selected comparison percentages describe how common each dated campus notice is across reporting districts in that group. They are neutral prevalence context; changing the comparison never changes a campus's official status.
Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
Compare against
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated B with 86 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 Achievement80 B+2.6 vs similar economic context · 334 reporting
School Progress82 B+2.2 vs similar economic context · 334 reporting
Closing the Gaps72 C−3.9 vs similar economic context · 333 reporting
Academic Growth72 C+1.9 vs similar economic context · 334 reporting
Relative Performance82 B+2.6 vs similar economic context · 334 reporting
Cooper ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (334 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
80
B
10
School Progress
82
B
8
Closing the Gaps
72
C
8
Academic Growth
72
C
8
Relative Performance
82
B
8
Closest to moving up: School Progress, 8 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 School Progress (82), so
Student Achievement (80) 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 level74%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Meets grade level47%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Masters grade level17%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level80%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Meets grade level56%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Masters grade level21%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level66%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Meets grade level36%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Masters grade level14%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level75%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 reporting
Meets grade level42%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 reporting
Masters grade level14%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level76%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
Meets grade level53%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
Masters grade level19%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 328 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (334 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
98.2%+2.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 317 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+3.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 318 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
98.1%+2.2 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 316 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.4%−0.2 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 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
98.0%+9.7 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
98.0%
88.3%
+9.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 318 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
54.7%
56.1%
−1.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
52.8%
23.2%
+29.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
1.9%
5.5%
−3.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
54.7%
31.5%
+23.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
84.9%
44.4%
+40.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
2.2%
−2.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
30.2%
4.4%
+25.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
2.9%
−2.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
7.5%
4.0%
+3.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
18.9%
9.8%
+9.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
3.8%
3.3%
+0.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 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
54
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
27
50.0% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
27
50.0% of graduates
Not trackable
0
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
54
Selected comparison
499.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 249 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
27
Selected comparison
216.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 249 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
50.0%
Selected comparison
43.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 249 rated districts reporting
+6.7 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
50.0%
Selected comparison
53.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 249 rated districts reporting
−3.1 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
3.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 249 rated districts reporting
−3.6 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
EAST TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY (003565)13
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
880
Economically disadvantaged
72.8%+1.1 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
4.1%−11.0 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
20.4%+1.9 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.1%+0.1 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
16.6%−1.0 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Cooper ISD
African American 8.2%
Hispanic 16.7%
White 67.2%
American Indian 0.8%
Asian 0.5%
Two or More Races 6.6%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting for every category shown · 334 in full cohort
African American 8.1%
Hispanic 53.8%
White 33.9%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.7%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.1%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 46 reporting for every category shown · 46 in full cohort
African American 11.7%
Hispanic 18.5%
White 62.5%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 6.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Delta County · 2 reporting for every category shown · 2 in full cohort
African American 19.5%
Hispanic 18.2%
White 53.4%
American Indian 0.8%
Asian 0.6%
Two or More Races 7.6%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 271 reporting for every category shown · 271 in full cohort
African American 4.9%
Hispanic 40%
White 50.7%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.4%
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
879
Economically disadvantaged students
640
Emergent bilingual students
36
Special education students
179
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 880 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 23 (2.5%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
880
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−23
Decrease · −2.5%
Change since 2021–22
+31
Increase · +3.7%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
880
Selected comparison
5,316.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Cooper ISD
School year
Students enrolledCooper ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
849
First available year
5,523.9
2022–23
888
Increase of 39 (4.6%)
5,544.3
2023–24
878
Decrease of 10 (1.1%)
5,491.6
2024–25
903
Increase of 25 (2.8%)
5,459.5
2025–26
880
Decrease of 23 (2.5%)
5,316.8
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
61
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
90
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−29
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
61
Selected comparison
325.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 312 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
90
Selected comparison
1,015.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−29
Selected comparison
−758
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Cooper ISD
School year
Transfers inCooper ISD
Transfers outCooper ISD
In minus outCooper ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
65
74
−9
220.3
859.1
−711
2022–23
69
76
−7
253.2
902.7
−719
2023–24
67
89
−22
277
968.8
−755
2024–25
61
85
−24
314.8
992.8
−736
2025–26
61
90
−29
325.3
1,015.1
−758
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Commerce ISD 11690316
North Hopkins ISD 11290612
Fannindel ISD 06091411
Top reported flows only. TEA published 3 of 11 counterpart counts and masked 8.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
North Hopkins ISD 11290630
Commerce ISD 11690319
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 14 counterpart counts and masked 12.
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
83
8.4% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
137
13.92 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
984
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
8.4%
Selected comparison
12.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
−3.8 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
13.92
Selected comparison
28.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 314 rated districts reporting
−14.2 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Cooper 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
907
38
4.2%
50
5.51
8.8%
18
2021–22
924
108
11.7%
212
22.94
12.5%
28.4
2022–23
955
98
10.3%
179
18.74
12.8%
30.4
2023–24
956
92
9.6%
189
19.77
12.6%
29.9
2024–25
984
83
8.4%
137
13.92
12.2%
28.1
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Cooper ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
83
8.4%
137
13.92
12.2%
28.1
In-school suspensions
75
7.6%
116
11.79
10.4%
20.2
Out-of-school suspensions
11
1.1%
14
1.42
4.3%
6.9
DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Discretionary DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized districts can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this district's own counts and rates remain fixed.
Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.
Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.
Community around the district
A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.
People living inside the district boundary
5,154
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
935
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
220
23.5%
School-age child poverty rate
23.5%
220 of 935
Boundary population
This district
5,154
Selected comparison
35,572.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
935
Selected comparison
6,321.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
220
Selected comparison
1,351.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
23.5%
Selected comparison
21.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 rated districts reporting
+2.4 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.
3 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
3
Selected comparison
9.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 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
High School
1
Middle / Jr. High
1
Browse all 3 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.
Cooper ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$16,588
Selected comparison
$23,070
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
−$6,482 vs similar economic context
This district spends $4,887 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $2,384 less per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Cooper ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$11,685
$13,378
$13,054
$14,179
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
2019
$12,574
$14,225
$13,108
$14,350
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
2020
$12,942
$15,250
$14,058
$15,516
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
2021
$13,017
$15,636
$14,797
$16,804
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
2022
$16,095
$16,982
$15,708
$18,035
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
2023
$19,222
$18,148
$16,792
$20,138
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
2024
$17,783
$19,654
$18,125
$21,384
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
2025
$16,588
$21,475
$18,972
$23,070
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 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
$64,706+$983 vs similar economic context
Teachers
76−281.7 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
11.5−1.8 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Cooper ISD
Beginning 8.4%
1 to 5 years 24.8%
6 to 10 years 22.2%
11 to 20 years 19.9%
21 to 30 years 18.4%
Over 30 years 6.2%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 reporting for every category shown · 334 in full cohort
Beginning 7.4%
1 to 5 years 26.5%
6 to 10 years 17.4%
11 to 20 years 26.2%
21 to 30 years 17%
Over 30 years 5.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 46 reporting for every category shown · 46 in full cohort
Beginning 6%
1 to 5 years 23.2%
6 to 10 years 18.1%
11 to 20 years 28.8%
21 to 30 years 17.8%
Over 30 years 6.1%
Selected comparison averageFor Delta County · 2 reporting for every category shown · 2 in full cohort
Beginning 9.8%
1 to 5 years 28.1%
6 to 10 years 18.9%
11 to 20 years 20.9%
21 to 30 years 18.2%
Over 30 years 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 271 reporting for every category shown · 271 in full cohort
Beginning 6%
1 to 5 years 22.3%
6 to 10 years 17.3%
11 to 20 years 29%
21 to 30 years 18.9%
Over 30 years 6.2%
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 24.3% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
24.3%
Selected comparison
23.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting
+0.9 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Cooper ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateCooper ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
25.4%
18.3%
2021–22
18.3%
22.1%
2022–23
23.2%
26.1%
2023–24
10.3%
22.8%
2024–25
24.3%
23.4%
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.
#1 rankings
First-place results
1 measure
1of 42
Earned an industry-based certification
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
3 measures
2of 42
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
2of 42
Earned an associate degree
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
2of 42
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
2 measures
9of 42
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
10of 44
Social Studies — Meets
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 44 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.