Laneville ISD

5 years of ratings

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 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.

Where the score comes from

Texas builds the overall rating from the better of Student Achievement and School Progress, weighted 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. School Progress is itself the better of Academic Growth and Relative Performance. The 60, 70, 80 and 90 rules mark the letter-grade thresholds.

• Student Achievement68 D−5.2 vs similar economic context · 118 reporting
• School Progress64 D−14.1 vs similar economic context · 118 reporting
• Closing the Gaps73 C−0.8 vs similar economic context · 118 reporting
• Academic Growth55 F−14.3 vs similar economic context · 118 reporting
• Relative Performance64 D−13.7 vs similar economic context · 118 reporting

• Laneville ISD
• Similar economic-disadvantage rate (118 in cohort)

Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 2 points below C 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 (68), so School Progress (64) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 68.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

• Approaches grade level
• Meets grade level
• Masters grade level
• Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (118 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%+6.6 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 114 rated districts reporting

Five-Year

100.0%+5.5 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 113 rated districts reporting

Six-Year

100.0%+5.7 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 114 rated districts reporting

Dropout Rate

0.0%−1.1 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 114 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

55.0%−29.1 pts vs similar economic context

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.

Who this district serves

Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.

Students

104

Economically disadvantaged

91.3%+3.6 pts vs similar economic context

English learners

18.3%−7.0 pts vs similar economic context

Special education

18.3%+0.6 pts vs similar economic context

Attendance

94.8%+1.9 pts vs similar economic context

Chronically absent

12.3%−10.9 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Laneville ISD

• African American 33.7%
• Hispanic 27.9%
• White 27.9%
• Two or More Races 10.6%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary

104

Economically disadvantaged students

95

Emergent bilingual students

19

Special education students

19

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 104 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 35 (25.2%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment

104

2025–26

Change from 2024–25

−35

Decrease · −25.2%

Change since 2021–22

−52

Decrease · −33.3%

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

Source: TEA PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. TEA reports these counts from its fall student snapshot; changes compare adjacent reported school years.

These counts show how enrollment changed, not why. Attendance-zone changes, school openings or closures, grade reconfigurations, transfers and population shifts can affect the total.

Students crossing district lines

How many students live in one public-school district and attend in another. These are movement counts, not a measure of family satisfaction or school quality.

Transfers in

Suppressed

Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26

Transfers out

96

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

Transfers in minus transfers out

Not available

Arithmetic context only

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

10

6.2% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions

19

11.80 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment

161

2024–25

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

1,603

2024 Census estimate

Children ages 5–17

253

Living inside the boundary

Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty

41

16.2%

School-age child poverty rate

16.2%

41 of 253

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

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

Spending per student

The selected txschools.net comparison changes with the page-wide control. TEA's own peer group and statewide reference stay visible as separately published, fixed TEA references.

• Laneville ISD
• TEA peer group
• Texas average
• Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

This district spends $8,794 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $3,331 more per student than the state average.

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

$64,380−$450 vs similar economic context

Teachers

17−497.9 vs similar economic context

Students per staff member

6.2−6.8 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Laneville ISD

• Beginning 11.2%
• 1 to 5 years 20.7%
• 6 to 10 years 5.9%
• 11 to 20 years 33.7%
• 21 to 30 years 10.7%
• Over 30 years 18.3%

Teacher turnover over time

TEA reported a 37.6% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.

TEA defines this district rate as the share of teacher full-time equivalents from the prior fall who are not employed as teachers in the district in the current fall. That can include leaving the district or remaining in a different role; it is not a campus-level measure. The comparison average changes with the selected group; this district's reported rate does not.

Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, fetched 24 August 2026.

Where this comes from

The Texas Education Agency publishes the underlying accountability reports and data downloads. Ratings, outcomes, demographics, staffing and finance on this page come from TEA data available through txschools.gov, fetched 15 August 2026. TEA’s Reports and Data Portal links the official bulk files. Enrollment history comes from TEA's PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The student-count context comes from TEA’s bulk accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026; TEA’s masking definitions explain withheld values. The dated notice, staffing, discipline, transfer, community and postsecondary sections cite their separate TEA, Census or THECB publication in place. Every archived source carries checksums so each number stays traceable to the bytes the public agency served.

Download this district as CSV · JSON · the whole dataset