Independent Texas school research. TEA data, clearly explained. Not affiliated with the state agencyTEA.
Geographic public school district
Tarrant County · Region 11: Fort Worth · 24,231 students
Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 87 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 82.5 average for 346 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 81.2 average for 16 rated districts in Tarrant County.The current score is below the 82.5 average for 54 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
Current strength
98.3% +2.5 pts vs 95.8%
Current strength
98.1% +2 pts vs 96.1%
Current strength
97.6% +1.3 pts vs 96.3%
Current strength
8.2% +5.6 pts vs 2.6%
Current strength
98.3% +2.5 pts vs 95.8%
Current strength
98.1% +2 pts vs 96.1%
Top placement
8.2% 1st of 16 districts in Tarrant County reporting this measure · 2025-26
See the full measureTop placement
98.1% Tied for 3rd of 16 districts in Tarrant County (standard accountability only) reporting this measure · 2025-26 · 2 share this value
See the full measureCurrent strength
8.2% +4.8 pts vs 3.4%
Current strength
98.3% +4.1 pts vs 94.2%
Current strength
98.1% +3 pts vs 95.1%
Current strength
98.3% +2.2 pts vs 96.1%
Current strength
98.1% +1.7 pts vs 96.4%
Current strength
97.6% +1.3 pts vs 96.3%
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.
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 77 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.5 average for 346 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 275th of 346 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 18 others).
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 77 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.3 average for 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 57th of 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth (tied with 8 others).
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 77 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.2 average for 16 rated districts in Tarrant County. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 12th of 16 rated districts in Tarrant County (tied with 1 other).
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 77 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.5 average for 54 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 46th of 54 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 2 others).
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 77 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 729th of 1,019 rated Texas districts (tied with 47 others).
Put the numbers in context
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.
2026 TEA list
2026–27 school year
| Campus | Notice | Official status or reason |
|---|---|---|
| Wayside MS | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Two or More Races |
| Highland MS | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Two or More Races |
| Prairie Vista | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · African American, Economically Disadvantaged |
| Ed Willkie MS | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Economically Disadvantaged |
| L A Gililland Elem | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · Hispanic |
| Saginaw Elem | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Bryson Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Hispanic |
| Elkins Elem | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · Hispanic |
| High Country Elem | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · White |
| Remington Point Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Comanche Springs Elem | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Northbrook Elem | CSI + PEG transfer list | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Copper Creek Elem | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · Asian |
| Elemizabeth Lopez Hatley Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · African American |
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.
Sources: TEA's 2026 Schools Identified for Improvement and Public Education Grant program, fetched 24 August 2026. A PEG listing makes a student assigned to that campus eligible to request a transfer; it does not guarantee acceptance, available space or transportation.
Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
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.
| Year | Rating | Score | Selected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rate | StateTexas average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | C | 77 | 82.5 346 reporting | 81.7 1,019 reporting |
| 2024-25 | C | 78 | 81.6 346 reporting | 80.3 1,019 reporting |
| 2023-24 | C | 76 | 79.8 346 reporting | 78.7 1,017 reporting |
| 2022-23 | C | 77 | 80.4 346 reporting | 79.2 1,018 reporting |
| 2021-22 | B | 83 | 81.1 345 reporting | 80.6 1,017 reporting |
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.
| Domain | Score | Grade | Points to next grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Achievement | 78 | C | 2 |
| School Progress | 74 | C | 6 |
| Closing the Gaps | 74 | C | 6 |
| Academic Growth | 71 | C | 9 |
| Relative Performance | 74 | C | 6 |
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 2 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 (78), so School Progress (74) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 78.
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.
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.
| Criterion | This district% of graduates | Averagesimilar economic context | Differencepercentage points | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total credit for CCMR criteria | 90.0% | 88.7% | +1.3 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 333 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course | 73.5% | 56.3% | +17.2 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA | 27.6% | 28.6% | −1.0 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s) | 25.8% | 7.1% | +18.7 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Earned college credit for a dual credit course | 12.3% | 36.1% | −23.8 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an industry-based certification | 18.4% | 41.2% | −22.8 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Earned a level I or level II certificate | 0.0% | 1.5% | −1.5 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an associate degree | 0.0% | 2.4% | −2.4 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit | 7.7% | 3.5% | +4.2 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness | 8.2% | 3.2% | +5.0 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student | 4.7% | 8.2% | −3.5 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 rated districts reporting |
| Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces | 3.1% | 3.5% | −0.4 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 334 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.
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.
Class of 2023–24
39.4% of graduates
57.3% of graduates
Fall 2024
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.
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 reporting for every category shown · 346 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Region 11: Fort Worth · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Tarrant County · 16 reporting for every category shown · 16 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 54 reporting for every category shown · 54 in full cohort
Statewide average 1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
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.
TEA-reported student enrollment for each available school year. Enrollment growth or decline is not a measure of school quality.
TEA reported 24,231 students in 2025–26, an increase of 249 (1.0%) from 2024–25.
2025–26
Increase · +1.0%
Increase · +7.9%
| School year | Students enrolledEagle Mt-Saginaw ISD | Change from previous school year | Average enrollmentselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 22,464 | First available year | 4,558.5 |
| 2022–23 | 23,196 | Increase of 732 (3.3%) | 4,651.3 |
| 2023–24 | 23,462 | Increase of 266 (1.1%) | 4,684.2 |
| 2024–25 | 23,982 | Increase of 520 (2.2%) | 4,718.5 |
| 2025–26 | 24,231 | Increase of 249 (1.0%) | 4,683 |
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.
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.
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Arithmetic context only
| School year | Transfers inEagle Mt-Saginaw ISD | Transfers outEagle Mt-Saginaw ISD | In minus outEagle Mt-Saginaw ISD | Transfers inselected comparison average | Transfers outselected comparison average | In minus outselected comparison average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 258 | 2,283 | −2,025 | 203.9 | 414.5 | −221 |
| 2022–23 | 265 | 2,294 | −2,029 | 207.5 | 448.7 | −252 |
| 2023–24 | 223 | 2,521 | −2,298 | 214.4 | 461.8 | −259 |
| 2024–25 | 258 | 2,806 | −2,548 | 231.8 | 512.7 | −291 |
| 2025–26 | 278 | 2,994 | −2,716 | 248.8 | 530.2 | −293 |
Top reported flows only. TEA published 8 of 25 counterpart counts and masked 17.
Top reported flows only. TEA published 26 of 73 counterpart counts and masked 47.
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.
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.
11.2% of cumulative year-end enrollment
28.30 per 100 students
2024–25
| School year | Cumulative enrollment | Studentsall discipline | Students% of enrollment | Actionsall discipline | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 22,917 | 1,306 | 5.7% | 2,496 | 10.89 | 8.0% | 15.3 |
| 2021–22 | 24,433 | 2,799 | 11.5% | 6,784 | 27.77 | 10.1% | 21.5 |
| 2022–23 | 25,099 | 2,897 | 11.5% | 7,583 | 30.21 | 10.6% | 22.6 |
| 2023–24 | 25,307 | 2,947 | 11.6% | 7,625 | 30.13 | 10.4% | 22.7 |
| 2024–25 | 25,685 | 2,886 | 11.2% | 7,268 | 28.30 | 10.1% | 21.6 |
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | 2,886 | 11.2% | 7,268 | 28.30 | 10.1% | 21.6 |
| In-school suspensions | 2,302 | 9.0% | 4,844 | 18.86 | 8.9% | 16.4 |
| Out-of-school suspensions | 1,290 | 5.0% | 2,014 | 7.84 | 3.1% | 4.5 |
| DAEP placements | 368 | 1.4% | 400 | 1.56 | 2.3% | 2.8 |
| Mandatory DAEP placements | 272 | 1.1% | 289 | 1.13 | 1.5% | 1.8 |
| Discretionary DAEP placements | 106 | 0.4% | 111 | 0.43 | 1.2% | 1.4 |
| JJAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| Mandatory JJAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| Discretionary JJAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| 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.
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.
2024 Census estimate
Living inside the boundary
10.4%
2,578 of 24,730
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.
The selected comparison is a neutral average district size. This district's school count and school-type mix remain its own facts.
| School | Type | Rating | Score | Students |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elmer C Watson HS | High School | A | 92 | 98 |
| Boswell HS | High School | B | 86 | 2,409 |
| Chisholm Trail HS | High School | B | 84 | 2,181 |
| Saginaw HS | High School | B | 83 | 1,860 |
| Eagle Mountain HS | High School | B | 80 | 1,302 |
| Wayside MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 79 | 1,195 |
| Creekview MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 78 | 978 |
| Eagle Mountain Elem | Elementary | C | 77 | 643 |
| Lake Pointe Elem | Elementary | C | 76 | 668 |
| Highland MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 75 | 663 |
| Ed Willkie MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 75 | 766 |
| Chisholm Ridge | Elementary | C | 75 | 645 |
| Lake Country Elem | Elementary | C | 73 | 639 |
| Weldon Hafley Development Ctr | Elementary | C | 72 | 294 |
| Willow Creek Elem | Elementary | C | 72 | 627 |
| Copper Creek Elem | Elementary | C | 72 | 678 |
| Parkview Elem | Elementary | C | 71 | 549 |
| Dozier Elem | Elementary | C | 71 | 647 |
| Saginaw Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 352 |
| Greenfield Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 592 |
| Northbrook Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 489 |
| Elemizabeth Lopez Hatley Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 606 |
| Prairie Vista | Middle / Jr. High | D | 68 | 1,003 |
| L A Gililland Elem | Elementary | D | 68 | 464 |
| Bryson Elem | Elementary | D | 67 | 641 |
| Elkins Elem | Elementary | D | 66 | 679 |
| Marine Creek MS | Middle / Jr. High | D | 65 | 907 |
| Remington Point Elem | Elementary | D | 64 | 463 |
| High Country Elem | Elementary | F | 59 | 519 |
| Comanche Springs Elem | Elementary | F | 59 | 611 |
| Alter Discipline Campus | K-12 | Not Rated | — | 59 |
| Tarrant Co JJAEP | High School | Not Rated | — | 4 |
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.
This district spends $826 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $824 more per student than the state average.
| Year | Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD | TEA peer group | Texas average | Selected comparison average | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $12,652 | $13,287 | $13,054 | $14,117 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting |
| 2019 | $14,289 | $13,321 | $13,108 | $14,376 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting |
| 2020 | $14,800 | $14,168 | $14,058 | $15,590 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting |
| 2021 | $17,418 | $14,814 | $14,797 | $16,372 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting |
| 2022 | $17,856 | $15,701 | $15,708 | $17,925 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting |
| 2023 | $23,355 | $17,110 | $16,792 | $19,615 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting |
| 2024 | $20,348 | $18,355 | $18,125 | $22,157 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting |
| 2025 | $19,796 | $18,970 | $18,972 | $23,244 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 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.
Eagle Mt-Saginaw ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 reporting for every category shown · 346 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Region 11: Fort Worth · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Tarrant County · 16 reporting for every category shown · 16 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 54 reporting for every category shown · 54 in full cohort
Statewide average 1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
TEA reported a 20.3% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
| School year | Teacher turnover rateEagle Mt-Saginaw ISD | Average turnover rateselected comparison |
|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 10.8% | 15.3% |
| 2021–22 | 14.5% | 18.8% |
| 2022–23 | 20.1% | 21.7% |
| 2023–24 | 18.7% | 20.5% |
| 2024–25 | 20.3% | 19.5% |
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.
Out of 200 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.
First-place results
1 measure
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure
Second- and third-place results
1 measure
Five-Year Graduation Rate
Tarrant County (standard accountability only) · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 1
Fourth- through tenth-place results
25 measures
Four-Year Graduation Rate
Tarrant County (standard accountability only) · of the 16 that report this measure
Six-Year Graduation Rate
Tarrant County (standard accountability only) · of the 16 that report this measure
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Social Studies — Masters
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 2
Per-student spending
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Student Achievement
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 2
Reading — Approaches
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 1
Reading — Meets
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Reading — Masters
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
All Subjects — Meets
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
All Subjects — Masters
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Science — Approaches
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 1
Science — Meets
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Social Studies — Approaches
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Social Studies — Meets
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
College, career or military ready
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 1
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Attendance
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
All Subjects — Approaches
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Math — Meets
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 1
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Earned an industry-based certification
Tarrant County · of the 16 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.
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.