Independent Texas school research. TEA data, clearly explained. Not affiliated with the state agencyTEA.
Geographic public school district
Kent County · Region 17: Lubbock · 187 students
Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 93 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 85.9 average for 186 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 84.7 average for 58 rated districts in Region 17: Lubbock.The current score is above the 83.1 average for 167 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
Recent movement
93 to 96 2024-25 to 2025-26
Recent domain gain
72 to 82 2024-25 to 2025-26
Current strength
100% +39.5 pts vs 60.5%
Recent movement
93 to 96 2024-25 to 2025-26
Recent domain gain
72 to 82 2024-25 to 2025-26
Current strength
96 +12.1 pts vs 83.9
Recent movement
93 to 96 2024-25 to 2025-26
Recent domain gain
72 to 82 2024-25 to 2025-26
STAAR result
Among 167 similarly sized districts reporting this measure.
See the full measureRecent movement
93 to 96 2024-25 to 2025-26
Recent domain gain
72 to 82 2024-25 to 2025-26
STAAR result
Among 1,019 Texas districts reporting this measure.
See the full measureSelected 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.
Jayton-Girard ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 96 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 85.9 average for 186 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 3rd of 186 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 2 others).
Jayton-Girard ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 96 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 84.7 average for 58 rated districts in Region 17: Lubbock. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 3rd of 58 rated districts in Region 17: Lubbock (tied with 2 others).
Jayton-Girard ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 96 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 83.1 average for 167 similarly sized rated districts. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 5th of 167 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 5 others).
Jayton-Girard ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 96 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is up 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 7th of 1,019 rated Texas districts (tied with 9 others).
Put the numbers in context
Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated A with 93 that year.
Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.
| Year | Rating | Score | Selected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rate | StateTexas average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | A | 96 | 85.9 186 reporting | 81.7 1,019 reporting |
| 2024-25 | A | 93 | 84.6 186 reporting | 80.3 1,019 reporting |
| 2023-24 | A | 93 | 83.3 186 reporting | 78.7 1,017 reporting |
| 2022-23 | A | 96 | 83.6 186 reporting | 79.2 1,018 reporting |
| 2021-22 | A | 95 | 84.3 186 reporting | 80.6 1,017 reporting |
Texas builds the overall rating from the better of Student Achievement and School Progress, weighted 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. School Progress is itself the better of Academic Growth and Relative Performance. The 60, 70, 80 and 90 rules mark the letter-grade thresholds.
| Domain | Score | Grade | Points to next grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Achievement | 96 | A | — |
| School Progress | 94 | A | — |
| Closing the Gaps | 97 | A | — |
| Academic Growth | 82 | B | 8 |
| Relative Performance | 94 | A | — |
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 (96), so School Progress (94) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 96.
Percentage of tests at or above each level. Masters is a subset of Meets, which is a subset of Approaches. The selected-comparison tick on each bar marks the average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate — a comparison TEA does not publish.
These measures use TEA's standard-accountability population. Each comparison average includes only districts in that population that report that specific measure; its reporting count is shown beside the average. It is an unweighted average of those reported district rates, not a pooled rate across every student in the group.
| Criterion | This district% of graduates | Averagesimilar economic context | Differencepercentage points | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total credit for CCMR criteria | 100.0% | 90.5% | +9.5 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course | 100.0% | 60.5% | +39.5 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA | 63.6% | 36.9% | +26.7 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s) | 0.0% | 11.2% | −11.2 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Earned college credit for a dual credit course | 81.8% | 40.5% | +41.3 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an industry-based certification | 0.0% | 39.8% | −39.8 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Earned a level I or level II certificate | 0.0% | 1.2% | −1.2 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an associate degree | 9.1% | 2.1% | +7.0 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit | 0.0% | 5.5% | −5.5 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness | 0.0% | 2.7% | −2.7 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student | 0.0% | 7.8% | −7.8 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 rated districts reporting |
| Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces | 0.0% | 3.3% | −3.3 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 178 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.
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Jayton-Girard ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 186 reporting for every category shown · 186 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Region 17: Lubbock · 58 reporting for every category shown · 58 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 167 reporting for every category shown · 167 in full cohort
Statewide average 1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
The first figure is TEA’s student count for this accountability summary. It is a separate publication from the fall PEIMS enrollment shown above and can differ; this site does not substitute one for the other. Counts come from TEA’s 2025-26 accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026. A reported zero is shown as 0. Small-number and complementary masks, unavailable values, and blank not-reported fields stay separate and are never estimated. TEA masking definitions.
TEA-reported student enrollment for each available school year. Enrollment growth or decline is not a measure of school quality.
TEA reported 187 students in 2025–26, an increase of 18 (10.7%) from 2024–25.
2025–26
Increase · +10.7%
Increase · +9.4%
| School year | Students enrolledJayton-Girard ISD | Change from previous school year | Average enrollmentselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 171 | First available year | 4,851.4 |
| 2022–23 | 175 | Increase of 4 (2.3%) | 4,970.2 |
| 2023–24 | 177 | Increase of 2 (1.1%) | 5,024.2 |
| 2024–25 | 169 | Decrease of 8 (4.5%) | 5,069.2 |
| 2025–26 | 187 | Increase of 18 (10.7%) | 5,054.1 |
The selected comparison column is the average enrollment among reporting districts in that group. It changes with the comparison control; this district's own counts do not.
Source: TEA PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. TEA reports these counts from its fall student snapshot; changes compare adjacent reported school years.
These counts show how enrollment changed, not why. Attendance-zone changes, school openings or closures, grade reconfigurations, transfers and population shifts can affect the total.
How many students live in one public-school district and attend in another. These are movement counts, not a measure of family satisfaction or school quality.
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Arithmetic context only
| School year | Transfers inJayton-Girard ISD | Transfers outJayton-Girard ISD | In minus outJayton-Girard ISD | Transfers inselected comparison average | Transfers outselected comparison average | In minus outselected comparison average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 12 | Suppressed | Not available | 188.5 | — | — |
| 2022–23 | 19 | Suppressed | Not available | 187.1 | — | — |
| 2023–24 | 21 | Suppressed | Not available | 191.1 | — | — |
| 2024–25 | 25 | Suppressed | Not available | 206.4 | — | — |
| 2025–26 | 26 | Suppressed | Not available | 219 | — | — |
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 4 counterpart counts and masked 2.
Selected comparison figures are average reported counts, not rates; group size and district enrollment affect them. They provide scale context and are not a performance judgment. This district's official totals do not change when the comparison does.
Source: TEA Student Transfer Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The totals are TEA's official district rows; this site does not add masked detail cells. A transfer records a mismatch between district of residence and public district or charter of attendance. It does not say why a family transferred, whether the move was optional, or whether either school is better.
TEA’s annual student and action counts, kept separate and divided only by the matching full-year enrollment. These figures describe removals from instruction, not a simple safe-or-unsafe score.
7.5% of cumulative year-end enrollment
14.36 per 100 students
2024–25
| School year | Cumulative enrollment | Studentsall discipline | Students% of enrollment | Actionsall discipline | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 190 | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| 2021–22 | 184 | 12 | 6.5% | 16 | 8.70 | 8.4% | 17.3 |
| 2022–23 | 181 | 11 | 6.1% | 12 | 6.63 | 8.8% | 18.3 |
| 2023–24 | 183 | 11 | 6.0% | 13 | 7.10 | 8.7% | 18.3 |
| 2024–25 | 188 | 14 | 7.5% | 27 | 14.36 | 8.3% | 17.1 |
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | 14 | 7.5% | 27 | 14.36 | 8.3% | 17.1 |
| In-school suspensions | 12 | 6.4% | 16 | 8.51 | 7.4% | 13 |
| Out-of-school suspensions | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| DAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| Mandatory DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| 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.
A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.
2024 Census estimate
Living inside the boundary
14.3%
19 of 133
Population averages provide neutral scale context and can differ sharply across a region, county or the state. The poverty-rate comparison is the like-for-like percentage; none of these Census measures is treated as school performance.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, fetched 24 August 2026. These are modeled estimates for residents inside the geographic district, not the students enrolled by the district. A family's poverty status is context, never a school-quality measure.
The selected comparison is a neutral average district size. This district's school count and school-type mix remain its own facts.
| School | Type | Rating | Score | Students |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayton Schools | K-12 | A | 96 | 187 |
The selected txschools.net comparison changes with the page-wide control. TEA's own peer group and statewide reference stay visible as separately published, fixed TEA references.
This district spends $19,950 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $26,907 more per student than the state average.
| Year | Jayton-Girard ISD | TEA peer group | Texas average | Selected comparison average | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $23,375 | $22,035 | $13,054 | $14,498 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 185 rated districts reporting |
| 2019 | $45,396 | $21,900 | $13,108 | $14,607 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 185 rated districts reporting |
| 2020 | $49,767 | $16,581 | $14,058 | $15,422 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 185 rated districts reporting |
| 2021 | $57,365 | $17,863 | $14,797 | $16,088 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 185 rated districts reporting |
| 2022 | $31,442 | $19,817 | $15,708 | $17,591 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 186 rated districts reporting |
| 2023 | $39,728 | $21,827 | $16,792 | $18,617 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 186 rated districts reporting |
| 2024 | $51,063 | $23,517 | $18,125 | $21,650 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 186 rated districts reporting |
| 2025 | $45,879 | $25,929 | $18,972 | $23,681 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 186 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.
Jayton-Girard ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 186 reporting for every category shown · 186 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Region 17: Lubbock · 58 reporting for every category shown · 58 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 167 reporting for every category shown · 167 in full cohort
Statewide average 1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
TEA reported a 22.7% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
| School year | Teacher turnover rateJayton-Girard ISD | Average turnover rateselected comparison |
|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 10.0% | 13.6% |
| 2021–22 | 4.5% | 17.4% |
| 2022–23 | 22.5% | 18.7% |
| 2023–24 | 9.1% | 18.6% |
| 2024–25 | 22.7% | 18.1% |
TEA defines this district rate as the share of teacher full-time equivalents from the prior fall who are not employed as teachers in the district in the current fall. That can include leaving the district or remaining in a different role; it is not a campus-level measure. The comparison average changes with the selected group; this district's reported rate does not.
Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, fetched 24 August 2026.
Out of 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.
First-place results
3 measures
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 178 that report this measure · tied with 3
Student Achievement
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure · tied with 2
Science — Approaches
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 57 that report this measure
Second- and third-place results
7 measures
Closing the Gaps
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 186 that report this measure · tied with 2
Overall score
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 186 that report this measure · tied with 2
School Progress
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 186 that report this measure · tied with 3
Relative Performance
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 186 that report this measure · tied with 2
Reading — Meets
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure
Science — Masters
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 57 that report this measure
Per-student spending
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 57 that report this measure
Fourth- through tenth-place results
12 measures
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 178 that report this measure
All Subjects — Approaches
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure · tied with 1
All Subjects — Meets
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure · tied with 2
Reading — Approaches
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure
Reading — Masters
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure
Math — Approaches
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure
Science — Meets
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 57 that report this measure
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 57 that report this measure
Earned an associate degree
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 57 that report this measure · tied with 1
All Subjects — Masters
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure · tied with 2
Math — Meets
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure · tied with 1
Academic Growth
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 58 that report this measure · tied with 1
These are selected high placements, not a summary. Every figure above this section is the full picture, including where this district ranks poorly. Each measure appears once here, using its strongest qualifying placement across all available comparison groups. Very large ties are left out because they do not distinguish this district; any tie that does appear is labeled. Every ranking this site publishes, including the ones no district would put in a press release.
The Texas Education Agency publishes the underlying accountability reports and data downloads. Ratings, outcomes, demographics, staffing and finance on this page come from TEA data available through txschools.gov, fetched 15 August 2026. TEA’s Reports and Data Portal links the official bulk files. Enrollment history comes from TEA's PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The student-count context comes from TEA’s bulk accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026; TEA’s masking definitions explain withheld values. The dated notice, staffing, discipline, transfer, community and postsecondary sections cite their separate TEA, Census or THECB publication in place. Every archived source carries checksums so each number stays traceable to the bytes the public agency served.