Recent movement
Overall score rose 4 points
73 to 77 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureIndependent Texas school research. TEA data, clearly explained. Not affiliated with the state agencyTEA.
Geographic public school district
Tarrant County · Region 11: Fort Worth · 67,491 students
Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 81 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 77.8 average for 228 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 83.3 average for 23 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
Recent movement
73 to 77 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureRecent domain gain
73 to 78 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureCurrent strength
72 +2.3 pts vs 69.7
Recent movement
73 to 77 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureRecent domain gain
73 to 78 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureCurrent strength
91% +2.4 pts vs 88.6%
Recent movement
73 to 77 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureRecent domain gain
73 to 78 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureTop placement
0.4% Tied for 2nd of 16 districts in Tarrant County reporting this measure · 2025-26 · 2 share this value
See the full measureRecent movement
73 to 77 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureRecent domain gain
73 to 78 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureCurrent strength
91% +4.5 pts vs 86.5%
Recent movement
73 to 77 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureRecent domain gain
73 to 78 2024-25 to 2025-26
See the full measureCurrent strength
91% +2.5 pts vs 88.5%
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.
Fort Worth ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 77 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 77.8 average for 228 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 121st of 228 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 12 others).
Fort Worth 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 up 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 57th of 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth (tied with 8 others).
Fort Worth 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 up 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 12th of 16 rated districts in Tarrant County (tied with 1 other).
Fort Worth ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 77 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 83.3 average for 23 similarly sized rated districts. It is up 6 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 22nd of 23 similarly sized rated districts.
Fort Worth 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 up 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 |
|---|---|---|
| South Hills HS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Dunbar HS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Eastern Hills HS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Polytechnic HS | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · African American, Economically Disadvantaged, English Learners |
| Western Hills HS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| O D Wyatt HS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Como Success Academy | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Graduation Rate |
| Forest Oak MS | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Asian, Continuously Enrolled |
| William James MS | CSI + PEG transfer list | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Kirkpatrick MS | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · White, Special Education |
| Meadowbrook MS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Monnig MS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Morningside MS | CSI + PEG transfer list | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Riverside MS | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Rosemont MS | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · Asian |
| Stripling MS | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · English Learners |
| Wedgwood MS | TSI + PEG transfer list | Targeted Support and Improvement · African American, Two or More Races, Special Education, Continuously Enrolled Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Leadership Academy at Leonard MS | TSI + PEG transfer list | Targeted Support and Improvement · Hispanic, English Learners Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| McLean 6th Grade | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · English Learners, Special Education |
| Boulevard Heights | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Graduation Rate |
| West Handley Elem | CSI + PEG transfer list | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Carroll Peak Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Economically Disadvantaged |
| Carter Park Elem | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| George Clarke Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Hispanic, Continuously Enrolled |
| Rufino Mendoza Sr Elem | CSI + PEG transfer list | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Diamond Hill Elem | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| East Handley Elem | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · Economically Disadvantaged |
| Harlean Beal Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · African American |
| W M Green Elem | ATS + PEG transfer list | Additional Targeted Support · Economically Disadvantaged Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Van Zandt-Guinn Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Hubbard Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| A M Pate Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Economically Disadvantaged, Continuously Enrolled |
| Maudrie Walton Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · African American |
| Sam Rosen Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Bruce Shulkey Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Richard J Wilson Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Springdale Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Sunrise - McMillan Elem | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| W J Turner Elem | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Waverly Park Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Westcreek Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education |
| Western Hills Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · English Learners |
| David K Sellars Elem | ATS | Additional Targeted Support · Continuously Enrolled |
| J T Stevens Elem | TSI | Targeted Support and Improvement · English Learners |
| T A Sims Elem | TSI + PEG transfer list | Targeted Support and Improvement · Special Education, Continuously Enrolled Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Edward Briscoe Elem | PEG transfer list | Final 2026-27 PEG list |
| Woodway Elem | CSI | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance |
| Clifford Davis Elem | CSI + PEG transfer list | Comprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Exited ATS Final 2026-27 PEG list |
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 81 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 | 77.8 228 reporting | 81.7 1,019 reporting |
| 2024-25 | C | 73 | 75.5 228 reporting | 80.3 1,019 reporting |
| 2023-24 | C | 70 | 73.6 228 reporting | 78.7 1,017 reporting |
| 2022-23 | D | 65 | 74.1 227 reporting | 79.2 1,018 reporting |
| 2021-22 | C | 71 | 77.0 227 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 | 73 | C | 7 |
| School Progress | 78 | C | 2 |
| Closing the Gaps | 76 | C | 4 |
| Academic Growth | 72 | C | 8 |
| Relative Performance | 78 | C | 2 |
Closest to moving up: School Progress, 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 School Progress (78), so Student Achievement (73) 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 | 91.0% | 86.0% | +5.0 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 219 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course | 78.4% | 52.5% | +25.9 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA | 19.0% | 21.3% | −2.3 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s) | 17.5% | 6.7% | +10.8 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Earned college credit for a dual credit course | 16.2% | 30.8% | −14.6 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an industry-based certification | 17.9% | 42.4% | −24.5 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Earned a level I or level II certificate | 0.4% | 3.0% | −2.6 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an associate degree | 4.5% | 4.6% | −0.1 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit | 20.3% | 3.0% | +17.3 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness | 2.1% | 3.7% | −1.6 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student | 5.8% | 9.8% | −4.0 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 rated districts reporting |
| Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces | 2.2% | 3.1% | −0.9 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 221 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
37.4% of graduates
50.8% 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.
Fort Worth ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 reporting for every category shown · 228 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 · 23 reporting for every category shown · 23 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.
TEA-published share: 1.5%
TEA-published share: 1.3%
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 67,491 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 2,914 (4.1%) from 2024–25.
2025–26
Decrease · −4.1%
Decrease · −9.8%
| School year | Students enrolledFort Worth ISD | Change from previous school year | Average enrollmentselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 74,850 | First available year | 7,505.7 |
| 2022–23 | 72,783 | Decrease of 2,067 (2.8%) | 7,504.3 |
| 2023–24 | 71,060 | Decrease of 1,723 (2.4%) | 7,400.5 |
| 2024–25 | 70,405 | Decrease of 655 (0.9%) | 7,315.3 |
| 2025–26 | 67,491 | Decrease of 2,914 (4.1%) | 7,080.1 |
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 inFort Worth ISD | Transfers outFort Worth ISD | In minus outFort Worth ISD | Transfers inselected comparison average | Transfers outselected comparison average | In minus outselected comparison average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 84 | 16,034 | −15,950 | 290.3 | 1,320.7 | −1,171 |
| 2022–23 | 122 | 17,883 | −17,761 | 335.6 | 1,389.4 | −1,218 |
| 2023–24 | 72 | 18,067 | −17,995 | 359.2 | 1,474.1 | −1,260 |
| 2024–25 | 695 | 20,098 | −19,403 | 395.1 | 1,499.7 | −1,256 |
| 2025–26 | 471 | 20,016 | −19,545 | 428.6 | 1,515.2 | −1,273 |
Top reported flows only. TEA published 9 of 24 counterpart counts and masked 15.
Top reported flows only. TEA published 47 of 88 counterpart counts and masked 41.
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.
10.6% of cumulative year-end enrollment
27.15 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 | 83,508 | 2,418 | 2.9% | 4,194 | 5.02 | 7.8% | 15.7 |
| 2021–22 | 82,776 | 8,815 | 10.7% | 21,301 | 25.73 | 13.0% | 30.7 |
| 2022–23 | 80,778 | 8,803 | 10.9% | 22,481 | 27.83 | 13.6% | 33.9 |
| 2023–24 | 79,165 | 8,940 | 11.3% | 23,130 | 29.22 | 13.3% | 32.6 |
| 2024–25 | 77,457 | 8,198 | 10.6% | 21,027 | 27.15 | 12.6% | 30.4 |
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | 8,198 | 10.6% | 21,027 | 27.15 | 12.6% | 30.4 |
| In-school suspensions | 5,528 | 7.1% | 10,166 | 13.12 | 10.3% | 20.4 |
| Out-of-school suspensions | 5,311 | 6.9% | 9,511 | 12.28 | 5.1% | 8.4 |
| DAEP placements | 1,108 | 1.4% | 1,226 | 1.58 | 3.2% | 3.9 |
| Mandatory DAEP placements | 990 | 1.3% | 1,093 | 1.41 | 1.8% | 2.1 |
| Discretionary DAEP placements | 130 | 0.2% | 133 | 0.17 | 1.8% | 2.1 |
| JJAEP placements | 15 | 0.0% | 15 | 0.02 | 0.1% | 0.1 |
| 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
21.1%
19,961 of 94,717
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Young Women's Leadership Academy | K-12 | A | 97 | 387 |
| Texas Academy of Biomedical | High School | A | 97 | 368 |
| Marine Creek Collegiate HS | High School | A | 97 | 293 |
| Tarrant Co College South/Fort Worth Collegiate HS | High School | A | 97 | 324 |
| IM Terrell Academy for STEM and Vpa | High School | A | 95 | 415 |
| Young Men's Leadership Academy | K-12 | A | 94 | 415 |
| Overton Park Elem | Elementary | A | 94 | 537 |
| World Languages Institute | K-12 | A | 93 | 503 |
| Tanglewood Elem | Elementary | A | 93 | 546 |
| Alice Carlson Applied Lrn Ctr | Elementary | A | 92 | 382 |
| Diamond Hill Elem | Elementary | A | 92 | 443 |
| Westpark Elem | Elementary | A | 92 | 381 |
| Como Success Academy | High School | A | 91 | 446 |
| Burton Hill Elem | Elementary | A | 91 | 359 |
| Glen Park Elem | Elementary | A | 91 | 425 |
| Benbrook MS/High School | K-12 | A | 90 | 1,508 |
| Alice D Contreras | Elementary | A | 90 | 457 |
| Benbrook Elem | Elementary | B | 89 | 381 |
| Moore M H Elem | Elementary | B | 89 | 462 |
| Rolling Hills Elem | Elementary | B | 89 | 636 |
| Southwest HS | High School | B | 88 | 1,059 |
| McLean MS | Middle / Jr. High | B | 88 | 769 |
| Maude I Logan Elem | Elementary | B | 88 | 448 |
| Natha Howell Elem | Elementary | B | 88 | 309 |
| Paschal HS | High School | B | 87 | 2,070 |
| South Hi Mount Elem | Elementary | B | 87 | 484 |
| Esperanza Elem | Elementary | B | 87 | 436 |
| Lily B Clayton Elem | Elementary | B | 86 | 462 |
| Como Elem | Elementary | B | 86 | 387 |
| Christene C Moss Elem | Elementary | B | 86 | 415 |
| Worth Heights Elem | Elementary | B | 86 | 425 |
| Oakhurst Elem | Elementary | B | 85 | 486 |
| South Hills Elem | Elementary | B | 85 | 623 |
| Jean McClung MS | Middle / Jr. High | B | 84 | 484 |
| Manuel Jara Elem | Elementary | B | 84 | 518 |
| Mitchell Boulevard Elem | Elementary | B | 84 | 372 |
| Luella Merrett Elem | Elementary | B | 84 | 471 |
| Arlington Heights HS | High School | B | 83 | 1,858 |
| North Side HS | High School | B | 83 | 1,531 |
| Applied Learning Acad | Middle / Jr. High | B | 83 | 352 |
| Daggett Elem | Elementary | B | 82 | 521 |
| Greenbriar Elem | Elementary | B | 82 | 458 |
| Westcliff Elem | Elementary | B | 82 | 497 |
| Lowery Road | Elementary | B | 82 | 450 |
| Dolores Huerta Elem | Elementary | B | 82 | 438 |
| M L Phillips Elem | Elementary | B | 81 | 421 |
| Trimble Technical HS | High School | B | 80 | 1,923 |
| Meacham MS | Middle / Jr. High | B | 80 | 638 |
| Boulevard Heights | K-12 | B | 80 | 34 |
| Helbing Elem | Elementary | B | 80 | 306 |
| Versia Williams Elem | Elementary | B | 80 | 273 |
| Bruce Shulkey Elem | Elementary | B | 80 | 314 |
| Dunbar HS | High School | C | 79 | 780 |
| Forest Oak MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 79 | 1,075 |
| Stripling MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 79 | 509 |
| Hubbard Elem | Elementary | C | 79 | 483 |
| Meadowbrook Elem | Elementary | C | 79 | 460 |
| Ridglea Hills Elem | Elementary | C | 79 | 699 |
| Richard J Wilson Elem | Elementary | C | 79 | 504 |
| Bonnie Brae | Elementary | C | 79 | 320 |
| Seminary Hills Park Elem | Elementary | C | 79 | 361 |
| South Hills HS | High School | C | 78 | 1,747 |
| Kirkpatrick MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 78 | 463 |
| Harlean Beal Elem | Elementary | C | 78 | 315 |
| Van Zandt-Guinn Elem | Elementary | C | 78 | 324 |
| Oaklawn Elem | Elementary | C | 77 | 388 |
| Daggett Montessori | Elementary | C | 77 | 549 |
| PK Satellite Centers | Elementary | C | 77 | 29 |
| Neighborhood Prek | Elementary | C | 77 | 133 |
| Carter-Riverside HS | High School | C | 76 | 960 |
| Diamond Hill-Jarvis HS | High School | C | 76 | 790 |
| Elder MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 76 | 615 |
| McLean 6th Grade | Middle / Jr. High | C | 76 | 381 |
| West Handley Elem | Elementary | C | 76 | 534 |
| Hazel Harvey Peace Elem | Elementary | C | 76 | 395 |
| Sam Rosen Elem | Elementary | C | 76 | 381 |
| Daggett MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 75 | 328 |
| Rosemont MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 75 | 1,136 |
| Leadership Academy at Leonard MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 75 | 554 |
| Int'l Newcomer Acad | Middle / Jr. High | C | 75 | 232 |
| Springdale Elem | Elementary | C | 75 | 343 |
| T A Sims Elem | Elementary | C | 75 | 685 |
| Eastern Hills HS | High School | C | 74 | 1,171 |
| Polytechnic HS | High School | C | 74 | 1,261 |
| Western Hills HS | High School | C | 74 | 781 |
| Washington Heights Elem | Elementary | C | 74 | 266 |
| Waverly Park Elem | Elementary | C | 74 | 656 |
| J T Stevens Elem | Elementary | C | 74 | 347 |
| J Martin Jacquet MS | Middle / Jr. High | C | 73 | 570 |
| Western Hills Elem | Elementary | C | 73 | 455 |
| Bill J Elliott Elem | Elementary | C | 73 | 383 |
| Western Hills Pri | Elementary | C | 73 | 375 |
| North Hi Mount Elem | Elementary | C | 72 | 361 |
| Westcreek Elem | Elementary | C | 71 | 374 |
| W J Turner Elem | Elementary | C | 70 | 319 |
| O D Wyatt HS | High School | D | 69 | 1,384 |
| Wedgwood MS | Middle / Jr. High | D | 69 | 684 |
| George Clarke Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 381 |
| Morningside Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 444 |
| A M Pate Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 250 |
| Sagamore Hill Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 468 |
| Clifford Davis Elem | Elementary | D | 69 | 611 |
| John T White Elem | Elementary | D | 67 | 414 |
| David K Sellars Elem | Elementary | D | 67 | 393 |
| Atwood McDonald Elem | Elementary | D | 67 | 273 |
| Meadowbrook MS | Middle / Jr. High | D | 66 | 730 |
| Rufino Mendoza Sr Elem | Elementary | D | 66 | 336 |
| Carroll Peak Elem | Elementary | D | 65 | 473 |
| McRae Elem | Elementary | D | 65 | 697 |
| Maudrie Walton Elem | Elementary | D | 65 | 275 |
| Riverside MS | Middle / Jr. High | D | 64 | 699 |
| East Handley Elem | Elementary | D | 62 | 370 |
| Monnig MS | Middle / Jr. High | D | 61 | 439 |
| Edward Briscoe Elem | Elementary | F | 59 | 311 |
| W M Green Elem | Elementary | F | 58 | 527 |
| Sunrise - McMillan Elem | Elementary | F | 58 | 379 |
| William James MS | Middle / Jr. High | F | 57 | 613 |
| Morningside MS | Middle / Jr. High | F | 54 | 388 |
| Carter Park Elem | Elementary | F | 54 | 490 |
| Woodway Elem | Elementary | F | 52 | 481 |
| Metro Opportunity | K-12 | Not Rated | — | 48 |
| Detent Ctr | K-12 | Not Rated | — | 118 |
| Jo Kelly Sp Ed | K-12 | Not Rated | — | 37 |
| Transition Ctr | High School | Not Rated | — | 122 |
| Juvenile Justice Alternative Ed Program | K-12 | Not Rated | — | 13 |
| Children's Medical Ctr | K-12 | Not Rated | — | 36 |
| Women's Haven | Elementary | Not Rated | — | 5 |
| Bridge Assoc | K-12 | Not Rated | — | 7 |
| Tarrant Youth Recovery | High School | Not Rated | — | 10 |
| Insights Learning Center | Elementary | Not Rated | — | 2 |
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 $582 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $7 less per student than the state average.
| Year | Fort Worth ISD | TEA peer group | Texas average | Selected comparison average | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $12,883 | $12,916 | $13,054 | $14,276 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting |
| 2019 | $12,735 | $12,976 | $13,108 | $14,420 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting |
| 2020 | $14,060 | $13,925 | $14,058 | $15,754 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting |
| 2021 | $17,533 | $14,752 | $14,797 | $17,185 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting |
| 2022 | $16,930 | $15,436 | $15,708 | $19,267 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting |
| 2023 | $17,853 | $16,223 | $16,792 | $21,739 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting |
| 2024 | $18,199 | $17,513 | $18,125 | $21,799 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting |
| 2025 | $18,965 | $18,383 | $18,972 | $22,828 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 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.
Fort Worth ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 reporting for every category shown · 228 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 · 23 reporting for every category shown · 23 in full cohort
Statewide average 1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
TEA reported a 17.3% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
| School year | Teacher turnover rateFort Worth ISD | Average turnover rateselected comparison |
|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 15.2% | 19.0% |
| 2021–22 | 17.6% | 22.0% |
| 2022–23 | 20.8% | 26.4% |
| 2023–24 | 16.9% | 23.6% |
| 2024–25 | 17.3% | 23.5% |
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.
Second- and third-place results
1 measure
Earned a level I or level II certificate
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure · tied with 1
Fourth- through tenth-place results
9 measures
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
Similar size · of the 23 that report this measure
Earned an associate degree
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
College, career or military ready
Similar size · of the 23 that report this measure · tied with 2
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Similar size · of the 23 that report this measure · tied with 1
Per-student spending
Similar size · of the 23 that report this measure
School Progress
Tarrant County · of the 16 that report this measure
Relative Performance
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
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.