−6.5 ptsvs 89.5 average · 68 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
62 of 68tied with 1 other
Score vs region
+1.0 ptsvs 82 average · 80 rated districts in Region 10: Richardson
Region 10: Richardson placement
34 of 80tied with 4 others
Score vs county
+0.4 ptsvs 82.6 average · 13 rated districts in Grayson County
Grayson County placement
6 of 13tied with 1 other
Score vs similar-size group
+1.9 ptsvs 81.1 average · 262 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
93 of 262tied with 15 others
Score vs state
+1.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
434 of 1,019tied with 52 others
B83
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 90 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 89.5 average for 68 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 82 average for 80 rated districts in Region 10: Richardson.The current score is level with the 82.6 average for 13 rated districts in Grayson County.The current score is above the 81.1 average for 262 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
Strengths and momentum
Current strength
Earned a level I or level II certificate above the similar-context average
2%+1.8 pts vs 0.2%
2% is 1.8 percentage points above
the 0.2% average among 63 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
3rd of 63 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Six-Year Graduation Rate above the similar-context average
100%+1.3 pts vs 98.7%
100% is 1.3 percentage points above
the 98.7% average among 63 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure (standard accountability only).
A precomputed strengths set is not available for this pinned entity. The page’s direct numeric comparisons still update to that pin.
Selected positive signals, not a summary of performance. The same rules choose them on every page: only the latest one-year gain, results meaningfully better than the currently selected comparison with broad reporting, and distinctive top-three placements. Demographics, staffing and spending cannot become academic “wins.” The overall rating and the full results below remain the complete picture for this district.
Read the full rating context and placement
Gunter ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 89.5 average for 68 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 2 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 62nd of 68 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 1 other).
Gunter ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82 average for 80 rated districts in Region 10: Richardson. It is down 2 points since 2021-22.
Gunter ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — level with the 82.6 average for 13 rated districts in Grayson County. It is down 2 points since 2021-22.
Gunter ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.1 average for 262 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 2 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 93rd of 262 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 15 others).
Gunter ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 2 points since 2021-22.
Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
Compare against
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated A with 90 that year.
Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.
Texas builds the overall rating from the better of Student Achievement and School Progress, weighted 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. School Progress is itself the better of Academic Growth and Relative Performance. The 60, 70, 80 and 90 rules mark the letter-grade thresholds.
Student Achievement86 B−4.5 vs similar economic context · 68 reporting
School Progress78 C−4.0 vs similar economic context · 68 reporting
Closing the Gaps76 C−11.1 vs similar economic context · 67 reporting
Academic Growth78 C−1.6 vs similar economic context · 67 reporting
Relative Performance68 D−11.4 vs similar economic context · 68 reporting
Gunter ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (68 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
86
B
4
School Progress
78
C
2
Closing the Gaps
76
C
4
Academic Growth
78
C
2
Relative Performance
68
D
2
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 4 points below A in that domain — the nearest of the measures that count toward the overall rating.
TEA does not add the domains up. The overall score is the better of Student
Achievement and School Progress at 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. For this district that better measure is Student Achievement (86), so
School Progress (78) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 86.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level83%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Meets grade level61%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Masters grade level24%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level87%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Meets grade level67%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Masters grade level24%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level77%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Meets grade level52%−11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Masters grade level19%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level90%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 reporting
Meets grade level69%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 reporting
Masters grade level32%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level80%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 reporting
Meets grade level56%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 reporting
Masters grade level27%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (68 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
98.1%−0.3 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 62 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
98.7%+0.1 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
100.0%+1.3 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.3 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 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
79.0%−10.5 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
79.0%
89.5%
−10.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 62 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
52.0%
64.2%
−12.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
35.7%
48.9%
−13.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
20.4%
19.2%
+1.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
40.8%
46.2%
−5.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
14.3%
35.5%
−21.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
2.0%
0.2%
+1.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
1.6%
−1.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
7.1%
−7.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
0.0%
2.1%
−2.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
8.2%
6.2%
+2.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
2.0%
2.3%
−0.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 63 rated districts reporting
Every row is a share of this district's graduates, and every row is a way of
meeting CCMR — so on every row, a bigger share is better. Difference is this
district minus the average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate,
counted in percentage points: +5.0 would mean five more graduates in every hundred met that
criterion here. The selected comparison is an unweighted average of the reported district percentages, not a pooled rate across all graduates in the group. Graduates may meet several criteria, so the rows do not add up to the total.
Counts in the comparison controls describe full cohort membership, not the denominator of every average. Each average uses only districts for which TEA reported that measure; metric-specific reporting counts are shown on the STAAR, graduation and CCMR rows and may vary.
After high school: the following fall
Where district graduates appeared in Texas public higher-education records the fall after graduation. This is a limited next-step measure, not an eventual college-going or completion rate.
Graduates in the report
78
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
44
56.4% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
31
39.7% of graduates
Not trackable
3
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
78
Selected comparison
587.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 49 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
44
Selected comparison
275.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 49 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
56.4%
Selected comparison
53.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 49 rated districts reporting
+3.3 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
39.7%
Selected comparison
41.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 49 rated districts reporting
−2.0 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
3.8%
Selected comparison
5.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 49 rated districts reporting
−1.5 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
GRAYSON COLLEGE (003570)16
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY (003615)5
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
1,154
Economically disadvantaged
18.9%−1.9 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
8.3%+3.0 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
14.9%+0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.6%−1.0 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
11.9%+3.5 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Gunter ISD
African American 1.2%
Hispanic 20.6%
White 73.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.3%
Two or More Races 3.4%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting for every category shown · 68 in full cohort
African American 3.2%
Hispanic 22.9%
White 64.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 5.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 10: Richardson · 80 reporting for every category shown · 80 in full cohort
African American 12.1%
Hispanic 33.2%
White 44.6%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Grayson County · 13 reporting for every category shown · 13 in full cohort
African American 2.8%
Hispanic 24%
White 65.7%
American Indian 0.7%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 5.8%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 262 reporting for every category shown · 262 in full cohort
African American 5.5%
Hispanic 41.5%
White 48.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.6%
Statewide average1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
African American 6.3%
Hispanic 43.1%
White 45.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.3%
Student counts behind the percentages
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
Students in this TEA accountability summary
1,153
Economically disadvantaged students
218
Emergent bilingual students
96
Special education students
172
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 1,154 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 2 (0.2%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
1,154
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−2
Decrease · −0.2%
Change since 2021–22
+39
Increase · +3.5%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
1,154
Selected comparison
5,776.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Gunter ISD
School year
Students enrolledGunter ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
1,115
First available year
5,602.7
2022–23
1,158
Increase of 43 (3.9%)
5,747.9
2023–24
1,140
Decrease of 18 (1.6%)
5,820
2024–25
1,156
Increase of 16 (1.4%)
5,888.5
2025–26
1,154
Decrease of 2 (0.2%)
5,776.9
The selected comparison column is the average enrollment among reporting districts in that group. It changes with the comparison control; this district's own counts do not.
These counts show how enrollment changed, not why. Attendance-zone changes, school openings or closures, grade reconfigurations, transfers and population shifts can affect the total.
Students crossing district lines
How many students live in one public-school district and attend in another. These are movement counts, not a measure of family satisfaction or school quality.
Transfers in
115
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
42
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
+73
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
115
Selected comparison
253.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
42
Selected comparison
487
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 57 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
+73
Selected comparison
−226
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 57 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Gunter ISD
School year
Transfers inGunter ISD
Transfers outGunter ISD
In minus outGunter ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
135
39
+96
216.4
355.1
−130
2022–23
113
32
+81
214.5
375.6
−157
2023–24
92
39
+53
213.5
415.9
−191
2024–25
96
39
+57
231.7
442.2
−201
2025–26
115
42
+73
253.5
487
−226
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Sherman ISD 09190621
Celina ISD 04390316
Howe ISD 09190516
Prosper ISD 04391212
S and S CISD 09191410
Top reported flows only. TEA published 6 of 18 counterpart counts and masked 12.
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
42
3.5% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
58
4.77 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
1,216
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
3.5%
Selected comparison
5.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 52 rated districts reporting
−2.1 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
4.77
Selected comparison
10.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 55 rated districts reporting
−5.5 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Gunter ISD
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
1,085
29
2.7%
42
3.87
4.3%
7.3
2021–22
1,161
63
5.4%
107
9.22
5.6%
10.5
2022–23
1,190
65
5.5%
91
7.65
5.9%
10.8
2023–24
1,197
66
5.5%
109
9.11
5.7%
10.9
2024–25
1,216
42
3.5%
58
4.77
5.6%
10.3
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Gunter ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
42
3.5%
58
4.77
5.6%
10.3
In-school suspensions
37
3.0%
50
4.11
4.8%
7.6
Out-of-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Discretionary DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized districts can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this district's own counts and rates remain fixed.
Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.
Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.
Community around the district
A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.
People living inside the district boundary
4,189
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
1,010
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
47
4.7%
School-age child poverty rate
4.7%
47 of 1,010
Boundary population
This district
4,189
Selected comparison
31,600.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
1,010
Selected comparison
6,068.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
47
Selected comparison
302.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
4.7%
Selected comparison
7.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
−2.6 pts vs similar economic context
Population averages provide neutral scale context and can differ sharply across a region, county or the state. The poverty-rate comparison is the like-for-like percentage; none of these Census measures is treated as school performance.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, fetched 24 August 2026. These are modeled estimates for residents inside the geographic district, not the students enrolled by the district. A family's poverty status is context, never a school-quality measure.
3 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
3
Selected comparison
8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 rated districts reporting
The selected comparison is a neutral average district size. This district's school count and school-type mix remain its own facts.
Elementary
1
High School
1
Middle / Jr. High
1
Browse all 3 schoolsName, type, rating, score and enrollment
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.
Gunter ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$35,226
Selected comparison
$32,240
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 rated districts reporting
+$2,986 vs similar economic context
This district spends $15,465 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $16,254 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Gunter ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$23,048
$13,378
$13,054
$18,912
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
2019
$20,686
$14,225
$13,108
$18,130
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
2020
$20,455
$15,250
$14,058
$21,131
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
2021
$21,068
$14,629
$14,797
$24,785
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 67 rated districts reporting
2022
$21,865
$15,859
$15,708
$24,146
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 rated districts reporting
2023
$36,674
$17,414
$16,792
$28,668
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 rated districts reporting
2024
$58,154
$19,844
$18,125
$30,795
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 rated districts reporting
2025
$35,226
$19,761
$18,972
$32,240
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 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
$81,105+$13,608 vs similar economic context
Teachers
73−313.8 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
15.9+2.0 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Gunter ISD
Beginning 1.2%
1 to 5 years 17.6%
6 to 10 years 19.4%
11 to 20 years 43.8%
21 to 30 years 13.1%
Over 30 years 4.8%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 reporting for every category shown · 68 in full cohort
Beginning 5.1%
1 to 5 years 19.1%
6 to 10 years 18.9%
11 to 20 years 31.8%
21 to 30 years 20.7%
Over 30 years 4.3%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 10: Richardson · 80 reporting for every category shown · 80 in full cohort
Beginning 6.6%
1 to 5 years 25%
6 to 10 years 18.8%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 16.7%
Over 30 years 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Grayson County · 13 reporting for every category shown · 13 in full cohort
Beginning 5.4%
1 to 5 years 22.2%
6 to 10 years 17.5%
11 to 20 years 32.4%
21 to 30 years 17.9%
Over 30 years 4.7%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 262 reporting for every category shown · 262 in full cohort
Beginning 5.6%
1 to 5 years 23.2%
6 to 10 years 17.3%
11 to 20 years 29.1%
21 to 30 years 18.7%
Over 30 years 5.6%
Statewide average1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
Beginning 6.4%
1 to 5 years 23.9%
6 to 10 years 17.7%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 17.7%
Over 30 years 5.5%
Teacher turnover over time
TEA reported a 21.1% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
21.1%
Selected comparison
18.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 68 rated districts reporting
+2.6 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Gunter ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateGunter ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
16.7%
12.5%
2021–22
24.4%
15.2%
2022–23
24.2%
19.2%
2023–24
31.4%
19.5%
2024–25
21.1%
18.5%
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.
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.
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
6 measures
2of 13
Reading — Approaches
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 13
Earned a level I or level II certificate
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
2of 13
Per-student spending
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
3of 13
Reading — Meets
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
3of 13
Science — Approaches
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
3of 13
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
27 measures
4of 13
Academic Growth
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 13
All Subjects — Meets
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 13
Math — Meets
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
4of 13
Science — Meets
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
4of 13
Social Studies — Meets
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 13
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
5of 13
All Subjects — Approaches
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
5of 13
All Subjects — Masters
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
5of 13
Reading — Masters
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
5of 13
Math — Masters
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
5of 13
Science — Masters
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
5of 13
Social Studies — Masters
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
6of 13
Overall score
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1 · full ranking
6of 13
Student Achievement
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
6of 13
School Progress
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 2
6of 13
Math — Approaches
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
6of 13
Social Studies — Approaches
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
6of 13
Four-Year Graduation Rate
Grayson County (standard accountability only) · of the 13 that report this measure
6of 13
Five-Year Graduation Rate
Grayson County (standard accountability only) · of the 13 that report this measure
6of 13
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
7of 13
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
8of 13
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
8of 13
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
8of 13
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
9of 13
Attendance
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
10of 13
Closing the Gaps
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
10of 13
College, career or military ready
Grayson County · of the 13 that report this measure
These are selected high placements, not a summary. Every figure above
this section is the full picture, including where this district ranks poorly. Each measure appears
once here, using its strongest qualifying placement across all available comparison groups. Very large ties are left out because they do not distinguish this district; any
tie that does appear is labeled. Every ranking this site publishes, including the ones
no district would put in a press release.
Where this comes from
The Texas Education Agency publishes the underlying accountability reports and data downloads. Ratings,
outcomes, demographics, staffing and finance on this page come from TEA data available through
txschools.gov,
fetched 15 August 2026. TEA’s Reports and Data Portal
links the official bulk files. Enrollment history comes from TEA's
PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations reports, fetched 24 August 2026.
The student-count context comes from TEA’s bulk accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026; TEA’s masking definitions explain withheld values. The dated notice, staffing, discipline, transfer, community and postsecondary sections cite their separate TEA, Census or THECB publication in place. Every archived source carries checksums so each number stays traceable to the bytes the public agency served.