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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Geographic public school district

Greenville ISD

Hunt County · Region 10: Richardson · 5,441 students

Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility

Current score
72/1002025-26
Change
+1 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−5.6 ptsvs 77.6 average · 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
168 of 216tied with 3 others
C72

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 76 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 77.6 average for 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Recent domain gain

Academic Growth rose 12 points

60 to 72 2024-25 to 2025-26

  • 72 is 2.6 points above the 69.4 average among 216 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measure

Current strength

Six-Year Graduation Rate above the similar-context average

97.4% +2.3 pts vs 95.1%

  • 97.4% is 2.3 percentage points above the 95.1% average among 210 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure (standard accountability only).
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

Greenville ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 72 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 77.6 average for 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.

Ranks 168th of 216 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 3 others).

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

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

Official improvement and transfer notices

Dated TEA notices for campuses in this district. They are shown separately from the district rating because they describe specific campuses, support programs and transfer eligibility.

Campuses identified for federal improvement support
6

2026 TEA list

Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
3

2026–27 school year

Share of campuses identified for improvement

This district
60.0%
Selected comparison
31.3%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

+28.7 pts vs similar economic context

Share of campuses on the PEG list

This district
30.0%
Selected comparison
8.9%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

+21.1 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Greenville ISD
CampusNoticeOfficial status or reason
New Horizons Learning CenterTSITargeted Support and Improvement · Economically Disadvantaged
Greenville MSTSI + PEG transfer listTargeted Support and Improvement · African American, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, English Learners, Special Education, Continuously Enrolled
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Bowie ElemTSITargeted Support and Improvement · Two or More Races
Crockett ElemPEG transfer listFinal 2026-27 PEG list
Carver ElemATS + PEG transfer listAdditional Targeted Support · Special Education
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Lamar ElemCSIComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Travis IntCSIComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance

Selected comparison percentages describe how common each dated campus notice is across reporting districts in that group. They are neutral prevalence context; changing the comparison never changes a campus's official status.

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.

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
90807060 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageGreenville ISD 7164646572 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 C with 76 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
2025-26C7277.6 216 reporting81.7 1,019 reporting
2024-25D6575.1 216 reporting80.3 1,019 reporting
2023-24D6473.5 216 reporting78.7 1,017 reporting
2022-23D6473.9 215 reporting79.2 1,018 reporting
2021-22C7176.8 215 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 Achievement70 C−4.6 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
  • School Progress73 C−5.7 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps71 C−3.6 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
  • Academic Growth72 C+2.6 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
  • Relative Performance73 C−5.3 vs similar economic context · 216 reporting
  • Greenville ISD
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (216 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement70C10
School Progress73C7
Closing the Gaps71C9
Academic Growth72C8
Relative Performance73C7

Closest to moving up: School Progress, 7 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 (73), so Student Achievement (70) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 73.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level61%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Meets grade level33%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Masters grade level10%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level62%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Meets grade level37%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Masters grade level11%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level56%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Meets grade level26%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Masters grade level8%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level67%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 reporting
  • Meets grade level35%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 reporting
  • Masters grade level11%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level67%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 reporting
  • Meets grade level35%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 reporting
  • Masters grade level9%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (216 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
93.9%−1.0 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 209 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
95.8%+0.4 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
97.4%+2.3 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.4%−0.5 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 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
82.0%−3.8 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
CriterionThis district% of graduatesAveragesimilar economic contextDifferencepercentage pointsReportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria82.0%85.8%−3.8 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 209 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course53.6%52.4%+1.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA10.7%20.8%−10.1 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)2.1%6.6%−4.5 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course26.8%30.5%−3.7 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification31.5%42.3%−10.8 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate0.0%2.9%−2.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree4.3%4.6%−0.3 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit0.2%3.1%−2.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness1.4%3.6%−2.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student7.8%9.9%−2.1 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces3.6%3.1%+0.5 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 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
365

Class of 2023–24

Enrolled in Texas public higher education
114

31.2% of graduates

Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
231

63.3% of graduates

Not trackable
20

Fall 2024

Graduates in the report

This district
365
Selected comparison
661.5

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

Enrolled in Texas public higher education

This district
114
Selected comparison
277.9

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

Texas-public enrollment rate

This district
31.2%
Selected comparison
42.0%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

−10.8 pts vs similar economic context

Not-found rate

This district
63.3%
Selected comparison
53.6%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

+9.7 pts vs similar economic context

Not-trackable rate

This district
5.5%
Selected comparison
4.4%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

+1.1 pts vs similar economic context

Most common named Texas public destinations

  1. EAST TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY (003565)36
  2. PARIS JUNIOR COLLEGE (003601)34
  3. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (003594)12

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
5,441
Economically disadvantaged
83.2%+1.8 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
30.2%+8.9 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
19.0%+0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
92.6%−0.7 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
24.2%+2.9 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Greenville ISD

African American: 14.7%Hispanic: 54.2%White: 24.8%American Indian: 0.2%Asian: 0.6%Pacific Islander: 0.3%Two or More Races: 5.2%
  • African American 14.7%
  • Hispanic 54.2%
  • White 24.8%
  • American Indian 0.2%
  • Asian 0.6%
  • Pacific Islander 0.3%
  • Two or More Races 5.2%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting for every category shown · 216 in full cohort

African American: 11.7%Hispanic: 65.8%White: 18.9%American Indian: 0.2%Asian: 0.8%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 2.5%
  • African American 11.7%
  • Hispanic 65.8%
  • White 18.9%
  • American Indian 0.2%
  • Asian 0.8%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 2.5%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
5,435
Economically disadvantaged students
4,524
Emergent bilingual students
1,644
Special education students
1,030

Early college pathways

Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH)
184

TEA-published share: 3.4%

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 5,441 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 142 (2.5%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
5,441

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
−142

Decrease · −2.5%

Change since 2021–22
+116

Increase · +2.2%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This district
5,441
Selected comparison
7,250.4

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Greenville ISD
School yearStudents enrolledGreenville ISDChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 5,325 First available year 7,686.6
2022–23 5,422 Increase of 97 (1.8%) 7,689.9
2023–24 5,418 Decrease of 4 (0.1%) 7,584.4
2024–25 5,583 Increase of 165 (3.0%) 7,493.2
2025–26 5,441 Decrease of 142 (2.5%) 7,250.4

The selected comparison column is the average enrollment among reporting districts in that group. It changes with the comparison control; this district's own counts do not.

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
116

Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26

Transfers out
1,324

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

Transfers in minus transfers out
−1,208

Arithmetic context only

Transfers in · 2025–26

This district
116
Selected comparison
442

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 189 rated districts reporting

Transfers out · 2025–26

This district
1,324
Selected comparison
1,594.7

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting

Transfers in minus out · 2025–26

This district
−1,208
Selected comparison
−1,357

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 185 rated districts reporting

Official transfer totals by school year for Greenville ISD
School yearTransfers inGreenville ISDTransfers outGreenville ISDIn minus outGreenville ISDTransfers inselected comparison averageTransfers outselected comparison averageIn minus outselected comparison average
2021–22 90 869 −779 298.2 1,380.7 −1,234
2022–23 107 1,041 −934 343.9 1,452 −1,284
2023–24 138 1,175 −1,037 370.9 1,535.9 −1,327
2024–25 141 1,244 −1,103 409.1 1,575.4 −1,341
2025–26 116 1,324 −1,208 442 1,594.7 −1,357

Largest reported origins for transfers in

  1. Commerce ISD 11690322
  2. Campbell ISD 11691012
  3. Quinlan ISD 11690811
  4. Caddo Mills ISD 11690110
  5. Royse City ISD 19990210

Top reported flows only. TEA published 5 of 22 counterpart counts and masked 17.

Largest reported destinations for transfers out

  1. Pioneer Technology & Arts Academy 057850726
  2. Boles ISD 116916110
  3. Caddo Mills ISD 11690180
  4. Lone Oak ISD 11690658
  5. Royse City ISD 19990243

Top reported flows only. TEA published 16 of 40 counterpart counts and masked 24.

Selected comparison figures are average reported counts, not rates; group size and district enrollment affect them. They provide scale context and are not a performance judgment. This district's official totals do not change when the comparison does.

Source: TEA Student Transfer Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The totals are TEA's official district rows; this site does not add masked detail cells. A transfer records a mismatch between district of residence and public district or charter of attendance. It does not say why a family transferred, whether the move was optional, or whether either school is better.

Discipline and removal from class

TEA’s annual student and action counts, kept separate and divided only by the matching full-year enrollment. These figures describe removals from instruction, not a simple safe-or-unsafe score.

Students in TEA’s all-discipline count
970

15.9% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
2,290

37.47 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
6,111

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This district
15.9%
Selected comparison
12.8%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 204 rated districts reporting

+3.1 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This district
37.47
Selected comparison
31.2

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 206 rated districts reporting

+6.3 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Greenville ISD
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 5,673 352 6.2% 599 10.56 7.9% 15.7
2021–22 5,827 866 14.9% 2,070 35.52 13.3% 31.7
2022–23 6,042 984 16.3% 2,577 42.65 13.9% 34.6
2023–24 6,012 979 16.3% 2,553 42.47 13.5% 33.3
2024–25 6,111 970 15.9% 2,290 37.47 12.8% 31.2
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Greenville ISD in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 970 15.9% 2,290 37.47 12.8% 31.2
In-school suspensions 807 13.2% 1,499 24.53 10.5% 20.9
Out-of-school suspensions 358 5.9% 515 8.43 5.2% 8.6
DAEP placements 231 3.8% 276 4.52 3.2% 3.9
Mandatory DAEP placements 122 2.0% 133 2.18 1.8% 2.1
Discretionary DAEP placements 131 2.1% 143 2.34 1.8% 2.1
JJAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Mandatory JJAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Discretionary JJAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Expulsions Not reported — Not reported — — —
Mandatory expulsions Not reported — Not reported — — —
Discretionary expulsions Not reported — Not reported — — —

Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized districts can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this district's own counts and rates remain fixed.

Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.

Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.

Community around the district

A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.

People living inside the district boundary
40,544

2024 Census estimate

Children ages 5–17
7,257

Living inside the boundary

Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
1,251

17.2%

School-age child poverty rate
17.2%

1,251 of 7,257

Boundary population

This district
40,544
Selected comparison
48,879

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting

School-age population

This district
7,257
Selected comparison
8,873.6

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting

School-age population in poverty

This district
1,251
Selected comparison
2,150.2

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting

School-age child poverty rate

This district
17.2%
Selected comparison
23.9%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 215 rated districts reporting

−6.7 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.

10 schools in this district

Number of schools in the district

This district
10
Selected comparison
12.1

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 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
5
High School
3
Middle / Jr. High
2
Browse all 10 schoolsName, type, rating, score and enrollment
Schools in this district
SchoolTypeRatingScoreStudents
Greenville HSHigh SchoolB851,519
Crockett ElemElementaryB81289
New Horizons Learning CenterHigh SchoolC7654
Bowie ElemElementaryC73574
Greenville MSMiddle / Jr. HighD67730
Carver ElemElementaryD65606
Lamar ElemElementaryD60518
L P Waters Early Childhood CenterElementaryD60369
Travis IntMiddle / Jr. HighF59748
Greenville Alternative Educational ProgramHigh SchoolNot Rated—34

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.

$10k$17k$25k20182020202220242025
  • Greenville ISD
  • TEA peer group
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This district
$13,824
Selected comparison
$22,899

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

−$9,075 vs similar economic context

This district spends $5,146 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $5,148 less per student than the state average.

View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
YearGreenville ISDTEA peer groupTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$11,031$13,287$13,054$14,430 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2019$10,870$13,321$13,108$14,518 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2020$11,214$14,168$14,058$15,833 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2021$11,872$14,814$14,797$17,243 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2022$14,207$15,701$15,708$19,517 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2023$14,774$17,110$16,792$21,958 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2024$15,679$18,355$18,125$21,949 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting
2025$13,824$18,970$18,972$22,899 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 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
$62,056−$2,599 vs similar economic context
Teachers
378−114.7 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
14.4+0.4 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Greenville ISD

Beginning: 11.2%1 to 5 years: 37.8%6 to 10 years: 19.2%11 to 20 years: 21.6%21 to 30 years: 9.3%Over 30 years: 0.8%
  • Beginning 11.2%
  • 1 to 5 years 37.8%
  • 6 to 10 years 19.2%
  • 11 to 20 years 21.6%
  • 21 to 30 years 9.3%
  • Over 30 years 0.8%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting for every category shown · 216 in full cohort

Beginning: 7.4%1 to 5 years: 27.6%6 to 10 years: 17.7%11 to 20 years: 25.6%21 to 30 years: 16.1%Over 30 years: 5.6%
  • Beginning 7.4%
  • 1 to 5 years 27.6%
  • 6 to 10 years 17.7%
  • 11 to 20 years 25.6%
  • 21 to 30 years 16.1%
  • Over 30 years 5.6%

Teacher turnover over time

TEA reported a 22.9% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.

Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25

This district
22.9%
Selected comparison
23.3%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

−0.4 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Greenville ISD
School yearTeacher turnover rateGreenville ISDAverage turnover rateselected comparison
2020–2123.8%18.8%
2021–2223.1%21.9%
2022–2331.9%26.1%
2023–2429.3%23.7%
2024–2522.9%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 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.

#1 rankings

First-place results

1 measure

  • 1of 10

    Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

#2–3 rankings

Second- and third-place results

1 measure

  • 2of 10

    Earned an associate degree

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

37 measures

  • 4of 10

    Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    Academic Growth

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 7of 10

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

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    Earned an industry-based certification

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 7of 10

    Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Overall score

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · full ranking

  • 8of 10

    School Progress

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Closing the Gaps

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Relative Performance

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Dropout Rate (lowest is best)

    Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    College, career or military ready

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 8of 10

    Earned college credit for a dual credit course

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 8of 10

    Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Student Achievement

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    All Subjects — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    All Subjects — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    All Subjects — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Reading — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Reading — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 9of 10

    Reading — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Math — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Math — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Math — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Science — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 9of 10

    Science — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Social Studies — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Social Studies — Meets

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Four-Year Graduation Rate

    Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Five-Year Graduation Rate

    Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Six-Year Graduation Rate

    Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 9of 10

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

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 9of 10

    Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Science — Approaches

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Social Studies — Masters

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Attendance

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

    Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure

  • 10of 10

    Per-student spending

    Hunt County · of the 10 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