−8.7 ptsvs 84.7 average · 232 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
215 of 232tied with 5 others
Score vs region
−6.3 ptsvs 82.3 average · 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth
Region 11: Fort Worth placement
66 of 76tied with 1 other
Score vs county
−2.6 ptsvs 78.6 average · 7 rated districts in Wise County
Score vs similar-size group
−4.0 ptsvs 80 average · 135 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
93 of 135tied with 7 others
Score vs state
−5.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
777 of 1,019tied with 40 others
C76
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is flat; under the rules in force back then it scored 82 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 84.7 average for 232 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 82.3 average for 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth.The current score is below the 78.6 average for 7 rated districts in Wise County.The current score is below the 80 average for 135 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
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s) above the similar-context average
13.7%+4.5 pts vs 9.2%
13.7% is 4.5 percentage points above
the 9.2% average among 222 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
Decatur ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 84.7 average for 232 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 215th of 232 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 5 others).
Decatur ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.3 average for 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Decatur ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 78.6 average for 7 rated districts in Wise County. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Decatur ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 80 average for 135 similarly sized rated districts. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 93rd of 135 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 7 others).
Decatur ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is unchanged 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
3
2026 TEA list
Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0
2026–27 school year
Share of campuses identified for improvement
This district
50.0%
Selected comparison
14.0%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
+36.0 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
0.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
−0.9 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Decatur ISD
Targeted Support and Improvement · Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, English Learners, Special Education, Continuously Enrolled
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 82 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 Achievement77 C−8.5 vs similar economic context · 232 reporting
School Progress69 D−12.3 vs similar economic context · 232 reporting
Closing the Gaps73 C−9.5 vs similar economic context · 232 reporting
Academic Growth69 D−6.3 vs similar economic context · 232 reporting
Relative Performance69 D−11.3 vs similar economic context · 232 reporting
Decatur ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (232 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
77
C
3
School Progress
69
D
1
Closing the Gaps
73
C
7
Academic Growth
69
D
1
Relative Performance
69
D
1
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 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 Student Achievement (77), so
School Progress (69) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 77.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level76%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Meets grade level50%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Masters grade level18%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level79%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Meets grade level57%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Masters grade level20%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level72%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Meets grade level40%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Masters grade level13%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level82%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 231 reporting
Meets grade level58%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 231 reporting
Masters grade level24%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 231 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level73%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 227 reporting
Meets grade level44%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 227 reporting
Masters grade level16%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 227 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (232 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
96.6%−0.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 223 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
95.4%−1.9 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
95.3%−2.1 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 223 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.7%+0.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 223 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
65.0%−25.2 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
65.0%
90.2%
−25.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
32.8%
59.4%
−26.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
31.3%
33.8%
−2.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
13.7%
9.2%
+4.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
17.2%
39.3%
−22.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
31.3%
41.6%
−10.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
1.5%
−1.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
2.4%
−2.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
14.5%
4.7%
+9.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
2.3%
2.9%
−0.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
8.4%
8.1%
+0.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
3.1%
3.4%
−0.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 222 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
279
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
97
34.8% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
169
60.6% of graduates
Not trackable
13
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
279
Selected comparison
479.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 173 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
97
Selected comparison
207.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 173 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
34.8%
Selected comparison
49.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 173 rated districts reporting
−14.4 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
60.6%
Selected comparison
47.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 173 rated districts reporting
+13.5 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
4.7%
Selected comparison
3.8%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 173 rated districts reporting
+0.9 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
WEATHERFORD COLLEGE (003664)32
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY (003644)7
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (003594)7
Selected comparison counts are neutral cohort scale context. The percentages put differently sized graduating classes on the same basis, but still cover only the limited Texas-public system observed by this report.
Source: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, high-school graduates enrolled in higher education, fetched 24 August 2026. The report covers graduates who enrolled in a Texas public college or university the following fall and includes only districts or campuses with more than 25 graduates.
“Not found” does not mean a graduate did not continue their education. It can include private or out-of-state college, work, military service, enrollment after the fall term, or another path the Texas public system does not observe.
“Not trackable” is not an outcome. THECB uses it for graduates with a non-standard identifier that could not be matched to higher-education records.
Who this district serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Students
3,819
Economically disadvantaged
39.4%−1.5 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
14.1%+6.9 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
18.4%+0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.1%−0.1 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
10.4%−0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Decatur ISD
African American 0.8%
Hispanic 37.8%
White 57.2%
American Indian 0.8%
Asian 0.4%
Two or More Races 2.8%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting for every category shown · 232 in full cohort
African American 4%
Hispanic 30.6%
White 60%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 11: Fort Worth · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
African American 6.5%
Hispanic 32.7%
White 53.3%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 2.5%
Pacific Islander 0.4%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Wise County · 7 reporting for every category shown · 7 in full cohort
African American 1%
Hispanic 31.3%
White 63.4%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 0.3%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.4%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 135 reporting for every category shown · 135 in full cohort
African American 8.7%
Hispanic 50%
White 36.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.4%
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
3,801
Economically disadvantaged students
1,497
Emergent bilingual students
536
Special education students
701
The first figure is TEA’s student count for this accountability summary. It is a separate publication from the fall PEIMS enrollment shown above and can differ; this site does not substitute one for the other. Counts come from TEA’s 2025-26 accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026. A reported zero is shown as 0. Small-number and complementary masks, unavailable values, and blank not-reported fields stay separate and are never estimated. TEA masking definitions.
Enrollment over time
TEA-reported student enrollment for each available school year. Enrollment growth or decline is not a measure of school quality.
TEA reported 3,819 students in 2025–26, an increase of 33 (0.9%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
3,819
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+33
Increase · +0.9%
Change since 2021–22
+203
Increase · +5.6%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
3,819
Selected comparison
4,929.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Decatur ISD
School year
Students enrolledDecatur ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
3,616
First available year
4,777.9
2022–23
3,838
Increase of 222 (6.1%)
4,877.1
2023–24
3,811
Decrease of 27 (0.7%)
4,923.3
2024–25
3,786
Decrease of 25 (0.7%)
4,954.8
2025–26
3,819
Increase of 33 (0.9%)
4,929.4
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
306
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
218
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
+88
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
306
Selected comparison
295.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 226 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
218
Selected comparison
478.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
+88
Selected comparison
−188
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Decatur ISD
School year
Transfers inDecatur ISD
Transfers outDecatur ISD
In minus outDecatur ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
288
214
+74
240.5
376.6
−144
2022–23
315
190
+125
242
404
−167
2023–24
310
193
+117
253.6
413.8
−165
2024–25
263
219
+44
275.9
457.9
−187
2025–26
306
218
+88
295.3
478.3
−188
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Bridgeport ISD 24990355
Alvord ISD 24990154
Boyd ISD 24990241
Paradise ISD 24990636
Northwest ISD 06191133
Top reported flows only. TEA published 9 of 20 counterpart counts and masked 11.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Bridgeport ISD 24990332
Paradise ISD 24990631
Slidell ISD 24990819
Hallsville ISD 10290416
Northwest ISD 06191113
Top reported flows only. TEA published 8 of 32 counterpart counts and masked 24.
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
217
5.4% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
402
10.05 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
4,000
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
5.4%
Selected comparison
8.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 202 rated districts reporting
−3.5 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
10.05
Selected comparison
18.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
−8.3 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Decatur ISD
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
3,660
255
7.0%
477
13.03
7.2%
14
2021–22
3,899
277
7.1%
539
13.82
8.9%
19
2022–23
3,992
253
6.3%
526
13.18
9.5%
19.7
2023–24
4,027
242
6.0%
450
11.17
9.2%
20
2024–25
4,000
217
5.4%
402
10.05
8.9%
18.4
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Decatur ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
217
5.4%
402
10.05
8.9%
18.4
In-school suspensions
189
4.7%
301
7.53
7.8%
13.9
Out-of-school suspensions
63
1.6%
70
1.75
2.7%
3.8
DAEP placements
27
0.7%
31
0.78
2.0%
2.4
Mandatory DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
21
0.53
—
1.5
Discretionary DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
10
0.25
—
1.1
JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized districts can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this district's own counts and rates remain fixed.
Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.
Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.
Community around the district
A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.
People living inside the district boundary
21,203
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
4,002
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
361
9.0%
School-age child poverty rate
9.0%
361 of 4,002
Boundary population
This district
21,203
Selected comparison
30,711.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
4,002
Selected comparison
5,387.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
361
Selected comparison
522.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
9.0%
Selected comparison
12.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
−3.2 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.
6 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
6
Selected comparison
7.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 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
4
High School
1
Middle / Jr. High
1
Browse all 6 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.
Decatur ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$14,496
Selected comparison
$23,569
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
−$9,073 vs similar economic context
This district spends $4,994 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $4,476 less per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Decatur ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$11,550
$12,629
$13,054
$14,062
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
2019
$11,546
$12,702
$13,108
$14,570
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
2020
$12,109
$13,696
$14,058
$15,269
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
2021
$14,535
$14,225
$14,797
$16,388
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
2022
$13,947
$15,710
$15,708
$17,999
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
2023
$13,754
$16,917
$16,792
$19,194
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
2024
$14,893
$18,225
$18,125
$21,900
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
2025
$14,496
$19,490
$18,972
$23,569
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 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
$74,232+$8,879 vs similar economic context
Teachers
228−108.2 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
16.7+4.0 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Decatur ISD
Beginning 1.6%
1 to 5 years 27%
6 to 10 years 18.1%
11 to 20 years 33.9%
21 to 30 years 15%
Over 30 years 4.3%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting for every category shown · 232 in full cohort
Beginning 5%
1 to 5 years 21.2%
6 to 10 years 18%
11 to 20 years 31.9%
21 to 30 years 18.8%
Over 30 years 5.1%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 11: Fort Worth · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
Beginning 6.5%
1 to 5 years 23.6%
6 to 10 years 20.2%
11 to 20 years 29.5%
21 to 30 years 16.2%
Over 30 years 4%
Selected comparison averageFor Wise County · 7 reporting for every category shown · 7 in full cohort
Beginning 5.6%
1 to 5 years 23.7%
6 to 10 years 20.3%
11 to 20 years 27.5%
21 to 30 years 17.1%
Over 30 years 5.8%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 135 reporting for every category shown · 135 in full cohort
Beginning 5%
1 to 5 years 26.3%
6 to 10 years 19.3%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 16.4%
Over 30 years 4.4%
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 20.3% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
20.3%
Selected comparison
18.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
+1.9 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Decatur ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateDecatur ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
14.8%
14.5%
2021–22
20.2%
17.9%
2022–23
21.9%
19.3%
2023–24
20.0%
19.0%
2024–25
20.3%
18.4%
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.
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.