+3.0 ptsvs 80 average · 379 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
123 of 379tied with 20 others
Score vs region
+0.7 ptsvs 82.3 average · 42 rated districts in Region 14: Abilene
Region 14: Abilene placement
18 of 42tied with 2 others
Score vs county
−3.5 ptsvs 86.5 average · 4 rated districts in Comanche County
Score vs similar-size group
+0.2 ptsvs 82.8 average · 165 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
89 of 165tied with 4 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 95 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 80 average for 379 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 82.3 average for 42 rated districts in Region 14: Abilene.The current score is below the 86.5 average for 4 rated districts in Comanche County.The current score is level with the 82.8 average for 165 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
41.7%+40 pts vs 1.7%
41.7% is 40 percentage points above
the 1.7% average among 367 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
1st of 367 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
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
Gustine ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80 average for 379 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 123rd of 379 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 20 others).
Gustine ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.3 average for 42 rated districts in Region 14: Abilene. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Gustine ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 86.5 average for 4 rated districts in Comanche County. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Gustine ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 83 out of 100 for 2025-26 — level with the 82.8 average for 165 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 11 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 89th of 165 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 4 others).
Gustine 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 11 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 95 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 Achievement88 B+8.8 vs similar economic context · 379 reporting
School Progress87 B+6.3 vs similar economic context · 379 reporting
Closing the Gaps72 C−5.0 vs similar economic context · 378 reporting
Academic Growth64 D−7.0 vs similar economic context · 379 reporting
Relative Performance87 B+6.7 vs similar economic context · 379 reporting
Gustine ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (379 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
88
B
2
School Progress
87
B
3
Closing the Gaps
72
C
8
Academic Growth
64
D
6
Relative Performance
87
B
3
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 2 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 (88), so
School Progress (87) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 88.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level69%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Meets grade level36%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Masters grade level15%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level76%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Meets grade level40%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Masters grade level10%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level60%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Meets grade level31%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Masters grade level15%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level77%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Meets grade level40%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Masters grade level31%+11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level62%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 373 reporting
Meets grade level35%−11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 373 reporting
Masters grade level12%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 373 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (379 in cohort)
Percentage of tests at or above each level. Masters is a subset of Meets, which is a subset of Approaches. The selected-comparison tick on each bar marks the average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate — a comparison TEA does not publish.
Graduation
Four-Year
100.0%+3.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 364 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+3.2 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 363 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
100.0%+3.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 361 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
These measures use TEA's standard-accountability population. Each comparison average includes only districts in that population that report that specific measure; its reporting count is shown beside the average. It is an unweighted average of those reported district rates, not a pooled rate across every student in the group.
College, career and military readiness
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%+11.2 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%
88.8%
+11.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 364 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
66.7%
56.8%
+9.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
50.0%
24.2%
+25.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
0.0%
5.6%
−5.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
91.7%
32.6%
+59.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
0.0%
43.7%
−43.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
41.7%
1.7%
+40.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
25.0%
3.7%
+21.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
2.4%
−2.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
0.0%
3.6%
−3.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
0.0%
9.2%
−9.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
0.0%
3.6%
−3.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 367 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.
Who this district serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Students
166
Economically disadvantaged
68.1%+1.1 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
25.3%+11.3 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
22.3%+3.9 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.9%+0.6 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
12.9%−3.3 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Gustine ISD
Hispanic 56.6%
White 41.6%
Two or More Races 1.8%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting for every category shown · 379 in full cohort
African American 6.7%
Hispanic 47.8%
White 40.9%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 14: Abilene · 42 reporting for every category shown · 42 in full cohort
African American 2.4%
Hispanic 34.1%
White 59.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.1%
Selected comparison averageFor Comanche County · 4 reporting for every category shown · 4 in full cohort
African American 0.2%
Hispanic 44.6%
White 52.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.3%
Two or More Races 2.3%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 165 reporting for every category shown · 165 in full cohort
African American 3.2%
Hispanic 36.2%
White 57.1%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3%
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
166
Economically disadvantaged students
113
Emergent bilingual students
42
Special education students
37
Early college pathways
Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH)
26
TEA-published share: 15.7%
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 166 students in 2025–26, an increase of 30 (22.1%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
166
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+30
Increase · +22.1%
Change since 2021–22
+21
Increase · +14.5%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
166
Selected comparison
4,338.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Gustine ISD
School year
Students enrolledGustine ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
145
First available year
4,433.1
2022–23
141
Decrease of 4 (2.8%)
4,468.2
2023–24
129
Decrease of 12 (8.5%)
4,442.1
2024–25
136
Increase of 7 (5.4%)
4,428.6
2025–26
166
Increase of 30 (22.1%)
4,338.5
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
39
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
51
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−12
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
39
Selected comparison
289.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 355 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
51
Selected comparison
690.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 364 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−12
Selected comparison
−445
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 343 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Gustine ISD
School year
Transfers inGustine ISD
Transfers outGustine ISD
In minus outGustine ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
15
37
−22
201.3
560.5
−403
2022–23
16
39
−23
226.7
594.6
−412
2023–24
11
41
−30
244.9
645.2
−440
2024–25
15
46
−31
276.3
671.5
−430
2025–26
39
51
−12
289.7
690.7
−445
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Comanche ISD 04790135
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 3 counterpart counts and masked 2.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Comanche ISD 04790130
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 10 counterpart counts and masked 9.
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
15
10.3% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
30
20.69 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
145
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
10.3%
Selected comparison
11.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 343 rated districts reporting
−1.2 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
20.69
Selected comparison
26
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 354 rated districts reporting
−5.3 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Gustine 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
165
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2021–22
159
Suppressed
—
15
9.43
—
26.5
2022–23
151
13
8.6%
22
14.57
12.1%
28.4
2023–24
142
16
11.3%
23
16.20
11.9%
27.7
2024–25
145
15
10.3%
30
20.69
11.5%
26
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Gustine ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
15
10.3%
30
20.69
11.5%
26
In-school suspensions
12
8.3%
13
8.97
9.9%
19
Out-of-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
11
7.59
—
6.1
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
1,103
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
171
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
19
11.1%
School-age child poverty rate
11.1%
19 of 171
Boundary population
This district
1,103
Selected comparison
27,848.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
171
Selected comparison
4,951
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
19
Selected comparison
980.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
11.1%
Selected comparison
19.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
−8.4 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.
1 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
1
Selected comparison
7.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 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.
K-12
1
Browse all 1 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.
Gustine ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$26,029
Selected comparison
$22,997
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
+$3,032 vs similar economic context
This district spends $5,068 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $7,057 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Gustine ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$15,249
$22,035
$13,054
$14,053
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
2019
$16,767
$21,900
$13,108
$14,395
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
2020
$21,392
$21,220
$14,058
$15,509
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
2021
$24,982
$22,787
$14,797
$16,528
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
2022
$21,946
$28,874
$15,708
$17,951
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
2023
$23,908
$35,111
$16,792
$19,541
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
2024
$30,899
$33,004
$18,125
$21,124
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
2025
$26,029
$31,097
$18,972
$22,997
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 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
$57,931−$5,909 vs similar economic context
Teachers
22−267.7 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
7.7−5.4 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Gustine ISD
Beginning 39.8%
1 to 5 years 17.1%
6 to 10 years 4.2%
11 to 20 years 22.2%
21 to 30 years 8.8%
Over 30 years 7.4%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 reporting for every category shown · 379 in full cohort
Beginning 7.3%
1 to 5 years 25.9%
6 to 10 years 17.4%
11 to 20 years 26.8%
21 to 30 years 16.9%
Over 30 years 5.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 14: Abilene · 42 reporting for every category shown · 42 in full cohort
Beginning 7.1%
1 to 5 years 22.7%
6 to 10 years 16.3%
11 to 20 years 29%
21 to 30 years 17.6%
Over 30 years 7.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Comanche County · 4 reporting for every category shown · 4 in full cohort
Beginning 14.6%
1 to 5 years 27.4%
6 to 10 years 13.5%
11 to 20 years 22%
21 to 30 years 15.2%
Over 30 years 7.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 165 reporting for every category shown · 165 in full cohort
Beginning 8.3%
1 to 5 years 23.3%
6 to 10 years 15.1%
11 to 20 years 27.6%
21 to 30 years 18.5%
Over 30 years 7.3%
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 16.2% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
16.2%
Selected comparison
22.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 rated districts reporting
−6.7 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Gustine ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateGustine ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
20.6%
17.8%
2021–22
49.1%
21.7%
2022–23
37.6%
25.4%
2023–24
32.4%
22.4%
2024–25
16.2%
22.9%
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 160 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
2 measures
1of 367
Earned a level I or level II certificate
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 367 that report this measure
1of 42
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Region 14: Abilene · of the 42 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
4 measures
5of 42
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Region 14: Abilene · of the 42 that report this measure · tied with 2
5of 42
Earned an associate degree
Region 14: Abilene · of the 42 that report this measure
10of 42
School Progress
Region 14: Abilene · of the 42 that report this measure
10of 42
Relative Performance
Region 14: Abilene · of the 42 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.