Independent Texas school research. TEA data, clearly explained. Not affiliated with the state agencyTEA.

txschools.netSchool data with context

Geographic public school district

DeKalb ISD

Bowie County · Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 928 students

Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility

Current score
83/1002025-26
Change
+4 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+4.2 ptsvs 78.8 average · 326 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
94 of 326tied with 16 others
B83

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 87 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 78.8 average for 326 rated districts serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Recent domain gain

School Progress rose 4 points

83 to 87 2024-25 to 2025-26

  • 87 is 7.4 points above the 79.6 average among 326 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measure

STAAR result

All Subjects above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters

Meets
48%vs 42.7% avg · +5.3 pts
Masters
16%vs 14.9% avg · +1.1 pts

Among 326 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.

See the full measure

STAAR result

Reading above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters

Meets
52%vs 47.4% avg · +4.6 pts
Masters
17%vs 15.7% avg · +1.3 pts

Among 326 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.

See the full measure

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

DeKalb ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 78.8 average for 326 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 4 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 94th of 326 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 16 others).

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

Jump to a section
  1. Overview
  2. 5 years of ratings
  3. Where the score comes from
  4. Student outcomes
  5. After high school: the following fall
  6. Who this district serves
  7. Student counts behind the percentages
  8. Enrollment over time
  9. Students crossing district lines
  10. Discipline and removal from class
  11. Community around the district
  12. 3 schools in this district
  13. Spending per student
  14. Teachers
  15. Where this district ranks best
  16. Where this comes from

5 years of ratings

Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.

Compare against
908070 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageDeKalb ISD 7974788383 2021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26

2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated B with 87 that year.

Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.

View the yearly scores and comparisons
Rating history with comparisons
YearRatingScoreSelected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rateStateTexas average
2025-26B8378.8 326 reporting81.7 1,019 reporting
2024-25B8377.1 326 reporting80.3 1,019 reporting
2023-24C7875.4 326 reporting78.7 1,017 reporting
2022-23C7476.1 326 reporting79.2 1,018 reporting
2021-22C7978.0 326 reporting80.6 1,017 reporting

Where the score comes from

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 Achievement82 B+4.7 vs similar economic context · 326 reporting
  • School Progress87 B+7.4 vs similar economic context · 326 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps75 C−0.7 vs similar economic context · 325 reporting
  • Academic Growth70 C±0.0 vs similar economic context · 326 reporting
  • Relative Performance87 B+7.7 vs similar economic context · 326 reporting
  • DeKalb ISD
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (326 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement82B8
School Progress87B3
Closing the Gaps75C5
Academic Growth70C10
Relative Performance87B3

Closest to moving up: School Progress, 3 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 (87), so Student Achievement (82) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 87.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level76%+6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Meets grade level48%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Masters grade level16%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level77%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Meets grade level52%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Masters grade level17%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level74%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Meets grade level41%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
  • Masters grade level13%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level85%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 reporting
  • Meets grade level57%+12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 reporting
  • Masters grade level23%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level66%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 reporting
  • Meets grade level42%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 reporting
  • Masters grade level12%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 320 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (326 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
100.0%+4.3 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 309 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
98.5%+2.3 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 310 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
98.6%+2.8 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 308 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.7 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 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
100.0%+11.8 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
CriterionThis district% of graduatesAveragesimilar economic contextDifferencepercentage pointsReportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria100.0%88.2%+11.8 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 310 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course98.6%56.0%+42.6 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA27.0%22.8%+4.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)0.0%5.4%−5.4 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course41.9%31.5%+10.4 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification29.7%44.6%−14.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate6.8%2.2%+4.6 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree0.0%4.5%−4.5 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit0.0%2.6%−2.6 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness2.7%3.9%−1.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student9.5%9.8%−0.3 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces4.1%3.3%+0.8 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 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 for districts 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
62

Class of 2023–24

Enrolled in Texas public higher education
19

30.6% of graduates

Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
43

69.4% of graduates

Not trackable
0

Fall 2024

Graduates in the report

This district
62
Selected comparison
504.8

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting

Enrolled in Texas public higher education

This district
19
Selected comparison
217.6

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting

Texas-public enrollment rate

This district
30.6%
Selected comparison
43.4%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting

−12.8 pts vs similar economic context

Not-found rate

This district
69.4%
Selected comparison
53.0%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting

+16.4 pts vs similar economic context

Not-trackable rate

This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
3.6%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting

−3.6 pts vs similar economic context

Most common named Texas public destinations

  1. TEXARKANA COLLEGE (003628)10

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
928
Economically disadvantaged
73.2%+1.0 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
5.0%−10.3 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
14.3%−4.3 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.0%+1.0 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
11.2%−6.5 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

DeKalb ISD

African American: 13.4%Hispanic: 11.6%White: 67.3%American Indian: 1%Asian: 0.5%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 6%
  • African American 13.4%
  • Hispanic 11.6%
  • White 67.3%
  • American Indian 1%
  • Asian 0.5%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 6%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting for every category shown · 326 in full cohort

African American: 8.4%Hispanic: 54%White: 33.4%American Indian: 0.3%Asian: 0.7%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 3.1%
  • African American 8.4%
  • Hispanic 54%
  • White 33.4%
  • American Indian 0.3%
  • Asian 0.7%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 3.1%

Student counts behind the percentages

Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.

Students in this TEA accountability summary
928
Economically disadvantaged students
679
Emergent bilingual students
46
Special education students
133

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 928 students in 2025–26, an increase of 30 (3.3%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
928

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
+30

Increase · +3.3%

Change since 2021–22
+145

Increase · +18.5%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This district
928
Selected comparison
5,396.2

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting

Student enrollment by school year for DeKalb ISD
School yearStudents enrolledDeKalb ISDChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 783 First available year 5,606.9
2022–23 828 Increase of 45 (5.7%) 5,626.7
2023–24 901 Increase of 73 (8.8%) 5,572.8
2024–25 898 Decrease of 3 (0.3%) 5,540.6
2025–26 928 Increase of 30 (3.3%) 5,396.2

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.

Source: TEA PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. TEA reports these counts from its fall student snapshot; changes compare adjacent reported school years.

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
224

Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26

Transfers out
172

Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26

Transfers in minus transfers out
+52

Arithmetic context only

Transfers in · 2025–26

This district
224
Selected comparison
329.6

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 304 rated districts reporting

Transfers out · 2025–26

This district
172
Selected comparison
1,033.2

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 317 rated districts reporting

Transfers in minus out · 2025–26

This district
+52
Selected comparison
−775

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 297 rated districts reporting

Official transfer totals by school year for DeKalb ISD
School yearTransfers inDeKalb ISDTransfers outDeKalb ISDIn minus outDeKalb ISDTransfers inselected comparison averageTransfers outselected comparison averageIn minus outselected comparison average
2021–22 112 177 −65 221.1 873.7 −725
2022–23 121 164 −43 254.4 918.4 −733
2023–24 194 149 +45 279.1 980.2 −764
2024–25 214 156 +58 318.9 1,011 −752
2025–26 224 172 +52 329.6 1,033.2 −775

Largest reported origins for transfers in

  1. New Boston ISD 01990562
  2. Simms ISD 01990954
  3. Hubbard ISD 01991348
  4. Avery ISD 19490230
  5. Malta ISD 01991016

Top reported flows only. TEA published 5 of 10 counterpart counts and masked 5.

Largest reported destinations for transfers out

  1. Malta ISD 01991043
  2. Hubbard ISD 01991336
  3. Simms ISD 01990928
  4. New Boston ISD 01990523
  5. Avery ISD 19490213

Top reported flows only. TEA published 5 of 18 counterpart counts and masked 13.

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
63

6.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
84

8.88 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
946

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This district
6.7%
Selected comparison
12.2%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 299 rated districts reporting

−5.5 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This district
8.88
Selected comparison
28.5

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 306 rated districts reporting

−19.6 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for DeKalb ISD
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 834 63 7.5% 112 13.43 8.8% 17.9
2021–22 871 89 10.2% 167 19.17 12.5% 28.5
2022–23 896 75 8.4% 107 11.94 12.9% 30.6
2023–24 954 90 9.4% 150 15.72 12.7% 30.3
2024–25 946 63 6.7% 84 8.88 12.2% 28.5
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for DeKalb ISD in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 63 6.7% 84 8.88 12.2% 28.5
In-school suspensions 52 5.5% 68 7.19 10.4% 20.4
Out-of-school suspensions Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
DAEP placements 12 1.3% 12 1.27 3.0% 3.7
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
4,293

2024 Census estimate

Children ages 5–17
755

Living inside the boundary

Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
159

21.1%

School-age child poverty rate
21.1%

159 of 755

Boundary population

This district
4,293
Selected comparison
36,205.9

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 rated districts reporting

School-age population

This district
755
Selected comparison
6,425.5

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 rated districts reporting

School-age population in poverty

This district
159
Selected comparison
1,374.2

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 rated districts reporting

School-age child poverty rate

This district
21.1%
Selected comparison
21.1%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 325 rated districts reporting

±0.0 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.

3 schools in this district

Number of schools in the district

This district
3
Selected comparison
9.3

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 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
Schools in this district
SchoolTypeRatingScoreStudents
DeKalb HSHigh SchoolA90285
DeKalb ElemElementaryB84355
James L Germany MSMiddle / Jr. HighC77288

Spending per student

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.

$9k$17k$25k20182020202220242025
  • DeKalb ISD
  • TEA peer group
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This district
$14,195
Selected comparison
$23,302

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting

−$9,107 vs similar economic context

This district spends $7,280 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $4,777 less per student than the state average.

View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
YearDeKalb ISDTEA peer groupTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$9,919$13,378$13,054$14,035 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting
2019$10,504$14,225$13,108$14,350 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting
2020$12,064$15,250$14,058$15,540 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting
2021$12,989$15,636$14,797$16,830 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting
2022$16,574$16,982$15,708$18,091 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting
2023$13,685$18,148$16,792$20,270 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting
2024$15,901$19,654$18,125$21,555 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting
2025$14,195$21,475$18,972$23,302 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 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
$63,146−$555 vs similar economic context
Teachers
78−284.7 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
11.8−1.5 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

DeKalb ISD

Beginning: 1.3%1 to 5 years: 20.4%6 to 10 years: 26.8%11 to 20 years: 34.3%21 to 30 years: 13.4%Over 30 years: 3.8%
  • Beginning 1.3%
  • 1 to 5 years 20.4%
  • 6 to 10 years 26.8%
  • 11 to 20 years 34.3%
  • 21 to 30 years 13.4%
  • Over 30 years 3.8%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 reporting for every category shown · 326 in full cohort

Beginning: 7.4%1 to 5 years: 26.6%6 to 10 years: 17.5%11 to 20 years: 26.1%21 to 30 years: 16.9%Over 30 years: 5.5%
  • Beginning 7.4%
  • 1 to 5 years 26.6%
  • 6 to 10 years 17.5%
  • 11 to 20 years 26.1%
  • 21 to 30 years 16.9%
  • Over 30 years 5.5%

Teacher turnover over time

TEA reported a 17.8% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.

Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25

This district
17.8%
Selected comparison
23.3%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 326 rated districts reporting

−5.5 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for DeKalb ISD
School yearTeacher turnover rateDeKalb ISDAverage turnover rateselected comparison
2020–2116.0%18.1%
2021–2218.6%22.1%
2022–2315.5%26.3%
2023–2419.0%22.8%
2024–2517.8%23.3%

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.

Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, fetched 24 August 2026.

Where this district ranks best

Out of 184 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

    Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

25 measures

  • 4of 13

    Relative Performance

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 5of 13

    School Progress

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 5of 13

    Science — Meets

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 6of 42

    Earned a level I or level II certificate

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 6of 13

    Science — Approaches

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 7of 13

    Science — Masters

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 7of 13

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 7of 11

    Social Studies — Meets

    Bowie County · of the 11 that report this measure

  • 7of 11

    Social Studies — Masters

    Bowie County · of the 11 that report this measure

  • 8of 13

    Student Achievement

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 8of 13

    Attendance

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 9of 42

    Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA

    Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure

  • 9of 13

    Overall score

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · full ranking

  • 9of 13

    Academic Growth

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 9of 13

    All Subjects — Meets

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 9of 13

    All Subjects — Masters

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 9of 13

    Reading — Approaches

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 9of 13

    Math — Approaches

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 9of 13

    Math — Meets

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 9of 13

    Math — Masters

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 9of 11

    Social Studies — Approaches

    Bowie County · of the 11 that report this measure

  • 10of 13

    Closing the Gaps

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 10of 13

    All Subjects — Approaches

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 10of 13

    Reading — Meets

    Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure

  • 10of 13

    Reading — Masters

    Bowie County · of the 13 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.

Download this district as CSV · JSON · the whole dataset