−25.7 ptsvs 77.7 average · 234 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
232 of 234tied with 1 other
Score vs region
−30.7 ptsvs 82.7 average · 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant
Region 08: Mt Pleasant placement
46 of 46among reporting districts
Score vs county
−30.2 ptsvs 82.2 average · 13 rated districts in Bowie County
Bowie County placement
13 of 13among reporting districts
Score vs similar-size group
−20.5 ptsvs 72.5 average · 11 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
10 of 11among reporting districts
Score vs state
−29.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
1,017 of 1,019tied with 1 other
F52
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 85 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 77.7 average for 234 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 82.7 average for 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant.The current score is below the 82.2 average for 13 rated districts in Bowie County.The current score is below the 72.5 average for 11 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
Strengths and momentum
Current strength
Attendance above the similar-context average
96.3%+2.9 pts vs 93.4%
96.3% is 2.9 percentage points above
the 93.4% average among 234 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Tied for 3rd of 234 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure; 2 districts share that value.
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
Hubbard ISD is rated F by TEA, scoring 52 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 77.7 average for 234 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 35 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 232nd of 234 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 1 other).
Hubbard ISD is rated F by TEA, scoring 52 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.7 average for 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant. It is down 35 points since 2021-22.
Hubbard ISD is rated F by TEA, scoring 52 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.2 average for 13 rated districts in Bowie County. It is down 35 points since 2021-22.
Hubbard ISD is rated F by TEA, scoring 52 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 72.5 average for 11 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 35 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 10th of 11 similarly sized rated districts.
Hubbard ISD is rated F by TEA, scoring 52 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 35 points since 2021-22.
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
1
2026 TEA list
Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0
2026–27 school year
Share of campuses identified for improvement
This district
100.0%
Selected comparison
30.8%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
+69.2 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
7.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
−7.6 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Hubbard ISD
Comprehensive 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.
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 B with 85 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 Achievement56 F−18.8 vs similar economic context · 234 reporting
School Progress56 F−22.8 vs similar economic context · 234 reporting
Closing the Gaps41 F−33.6 vs similar economic context · 233 reporting
Academic Growth47 F−22.6 vs similar economic context · 234 reporting
Relative Performance56 F−22.4 vs similar economic context · 234 reporting
Hubbard ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (234 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
56
F
4
School Progress
56
F
4
Closing the Gaps
41
F
19
Academic Growth
47
F
13
Relative Performance
56
F
4
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 4 points below D 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%.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level56%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Meets grade level30%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Masters grade level5%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level68%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Meets grade level28%−16 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Masters grade level12%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level60%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Meets grade level40%+6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Masters grade level0%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level29%−43 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Meets grade level14%−28 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Masters grade level0%−16 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 reporting
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (234 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.
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
54
Economically disadvantaged
81.5%+1.4 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
18.5%−2.0 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
11.1%−7.1 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
96.3%+2.9 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
18.0%−2.9 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Hubbard ISD
Hispanic 29.6%
White 68.5%
Two or More Races 1.9%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting for every category shown · 234 in full cohort
African American 11%
Hispanic 64.5%
White 20.7%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 46 reporting for every category shown · 46 in full cohort
African American 11.7%
Hispanic 18.5%
White 62.5%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 6.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Bowie County · 13 reporting for every category shown · 13 in full cohort
African American 14%
Hispanic 10.3%
White 67.2%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 7.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 11 reporting for every category shown · 11 in full cohort
African American 1.4%
Hispanic 34.8%
White 59.8%
American Indian 0.3%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.5%
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
54
Economically disadvantaged students
44
Emergent bilingual students
10
Special education students
6
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 54 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 10 (15.6%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
54
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−10
Decrease · −15.6%
Change since 2021–22
−15
Decrease · −21.7%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
54
Selected comparison
7,062.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Hubbard ISD
School year
Students enrolledHubbard ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
69
First available year
7,479.3
2022–23
77
Increase of 8 (11.6%)
7,484.5
2023–24
67
Decrease of 10 (13.0%)
7,382.8
2024–25
64
Decrease of 3 (4.5%)
7,300.5
2025–26
54
Decrease of 10 (15.6%)
7,062.7
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
44
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
55
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−11
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
44
Selected comparison
418.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 206 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
55
Selected comparison
1,503.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 228 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−11
Selected comparison
−1,265
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 202 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Hubbard ISD
School year
Transfers inHubbard ISD
Transfers outHubbard ISD
In minus outHubbard ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
48
41
+7
284.5
1,304.6
−1,155
2022–23
46
47
−1
329.1
1,370.1
−1,198
2023–24
44
51
−7
351.3
1,455.1
−1,242
2024–25
46
55
−9
386.2
1,482.3
−1,242
2025–26
44
55
−11
418.4
1,503.7
−1,265
Largest reported origins for transfers in
DeKalb ISD 01990136
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 5 counterpart counts and masked 4.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
DeKalb ISD 01990148
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 6 counterpart counts and masked 5.
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
Not reported
Rate not available
Disciplinary actions
Not reported
Rate not available
Cumulative year-end enrollment
72
2024–25
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Hubbard 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
82
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
2021–22
74
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
2022–23
81
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2023–24
74
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2024–25
72
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Hubbard ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
In-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Out-of-school suspensions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
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
568
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
111
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
9
8.1%
School-age child poverty rate
8.1%
9 of 111
Boundary population
This district
568
Selected comparison
47,939.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
111
Selected comparison
8,649.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
9
Selected comparison
2,044.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
8.1%
Selected comparison
23.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
−15.3 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
11.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 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
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.
Hubbard ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$23,487
Selected comparison
$22,683
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
+$804 vs similar economic context
This district spends $7,610 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $4,515 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Hubbard ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$9,620
$14,290
$13,054
$14,280
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
2019
$8,983
$14,384
$13,108
$14,397
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
2020
$9,763
$16,581
$14,058
$15,678
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
2021
$15,100
$17,863
$14,797
$17,166
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
2022
$16,804
$28,874
$15,708
$19,189
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
2023
$17,261
$35,111
$16,792
$21,740
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
2024
$23,978
$33,004
$18,125
$21,682
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
2025
$23,487
$31,097
$18,972
$22,683
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 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
$51,410−$12,883 vs similar economic context
Teachers
9−470.0 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
6−7.9 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Hubbard ISD
Beginning 34.8%
1 to 5 years 20.2%
6 to 10 years 20.2%
11 to 20 years 24.7%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 reporting for every category shown · 234 in full cohort
Beginning 7.6%
1 to 5 years 27.7%
6 to 10 years 17.6%
11 to 20 years 25.5%
21 to 30 years 16.2%
Over 30 years 5.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 46 reporting for every category shown · 46 in full cohort
Beginning 6%
1 to 5 years 23.2%
6 to 10 years 18.1%
11 to 20 years 28.8%
21 to 30 years 17.8%
Over 30 years 6.1%
Selected comparison averageFor Bowie County · 13 reporting for every category shown · 13 in full cohort
Beginning 6.2%
1 to 5 years 20.3%
6 to 10 years 19.5%
11 to 20 years 32.7%
21 to 30 years 16.1%
Over 30 years 5.3%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 11 reporting for every category shown · 11 in full cohort
Beginning 18.3%
1 to 5 years 23.4%
6 to 10 years 12%
11 to 20 years 26.7%
21 to 30 years 12.6%
Over 30 years 7.2%
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 16.9% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
16.9%
Selected comparison
23.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
−6.7 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Hubbard ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateHubbard ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
20.3%
19.1%
2021–22
20.6%
22.0%
2022–23
38.5%
26.5%
2023–24
44.5%
23.7%
2024–25
16.9%
23.6%
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 102 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
2 measures
2of 46
Attendance
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 46 that report this measure
3of 13
Per-student spending
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
14 measures
5of 11
Math — Meets
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
7of 11
Math — Approaches
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
8of 11
Reading — Approaches
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure · tied with 2
8of 11
Reading — Masters
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
9of 11
Relative Performance
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
9of 11
All Subjects — Approaches
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure · tied with 1
9of 11
All Subjects — Meets
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
9of 11
All Subjects — Masters
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure · tied with 1
10of 11
Overall score
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
10of 11
Student Achievement
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
10of 11
School Progress
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
10of 11
Closing the Gaps
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
10of 11
Reading — Meets
Similar size · of the 11 that report this measure
10of 11
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Similar size · of the 11 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.