−4.3 ptsvs 90.3 average · 38 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
31 of 38tied with 1 other
Score vs region
+3.7 ptsvs 82.3 average · 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth
Region 11: Fort Worth placement
25 of 76tied with 2 others
Score vs county
+4.5 ptsvs 81.5 average · 8 rated districts in Cooke County
Score vs similar-size group
+3.0 ptsvs 83 average · 259 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
93 of 259tied with 16 others
Score vs state
+4.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
303 of 1,019tied with 46 others
B86
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 96 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 90.3 average for 38 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 82.3 average for 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth.The current score is above the 81.5 average for 8 rated districts in Cooke County.The current score is above the 83 average for 259 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
Attendance above the similar-context average
97.1%+1.2 pts vs 95.9%
97.1% is 1.2 percentage points above
the 95.9% average among 38 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
3rd of 38 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Four-Year Graduation Rate above the similar-context average
100%+1.6 pts vs 98.4%
100% is 1.6 percentage points above
the 98.4% average among 33 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
Lindsay ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 90.3 average for 38 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 31st of 38 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 1 other).
Lindsay ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.3 average for 76 rated districts in Region 11: Fort Worth. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Lindsay ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.5 average for 8 rated districts in Cooke County. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Lindsay ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 83 average for 259 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 93rd of 259 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 16 others).
Lindsay ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 5 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 96 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−5.2 vs similar economic context · 38 reporting
School Progress80 B−0.4 vs similar economic context · 38 reporting
Closing the Gaps85 B−3.5 vs similar economic context · 36 reporting
Academic Growth80 B+1.0 vs similar economic context · 37 reporting
Relative Performance60 D−16.4 vs similar economic context · 38 reporting
Lindsay ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (38 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
86
B
4
School Progress
80
B
10
Closing the Gaps
85
B
5
Academic Growth
80
B
10
Relative Performance
60
D
10
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 (80) 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 level87%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Meets grade level64%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Masters grade level28%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level91%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Meets grade level71%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Masters grade level31%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level87%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Meets grade level60%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Masters grade level24%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level86%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 36 reporting
Meets grade level64%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 36 reporting
Masters grade level29%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 36 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level70%−17 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 35 reporting
Meets grade level56%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 35 reporting
Masters grade level26%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 35 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (38 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%+1.6 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+3.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
100.0%+3.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.1 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 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
64.0%−25.9 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
64.0%
89.9%
−25.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
50.0%
68.5%
−18.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
50.0%
53.7%
−3.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
11.1%
29.1%
−18.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
50.0%
42.8%
+7.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
0.0%
27.9%
−27.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
0.2%
−0.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
1.3%
−1.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
6.5%
−6.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
8.3%
2.4%
+5.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
8.3%
6.0%
+2.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
0.0%
1.8%
−1.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 33 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
29
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
20
69.0% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
9
31.0% of graduates
Not trackable
0
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
29
Selected comparison
535.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 29 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
20
Selected comparison
233.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 29 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
69.0%
Selected comparison
49.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 29 rated districts reporting
+19.5 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
31.0%
Selected comparison
44.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 29 rated districts reporting
−13.9 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
5.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 29 rated districts reporting
−5.6 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE (003558)10
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
511
Economically disadvantaged
8.3%−2.9 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
0.4%−4.6 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
21.8%+7.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
97.1%+1.2 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
2.6%−4.8 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Lindsay ISD
African American 1.4%
Hispanic 4%
White 91.9%
American Indian 0.4%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 2.2%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting for every category shown · 38 in full cohort
African American 3.3%
Hispanic 19.1%
White 63.2%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 9.1%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 11: Fort Worth · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
African American 6.5%
Hispanic 32.7%
White 53.3%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 2.5%
Pacific Islander 0.4%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Cooke County · 8 reporting for every category shown · 8 in full cohort
African American 1%
Hispanic 24.4%
White 69.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.2%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 259 reporting for every category shown · 259 in full cohort
African American 4%
Hispanic 39.1%
White 53.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.1%
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
504
Economically disadvantaged students
42
Emergent bilingual students
2
Special education students
110
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 511 students in 2025–26, an increase of 4 (0.8%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
511
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+4
Increase · +0.8%
Change since 2021–22
+21
Increase · +4.3%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
511
Selected comparison
5,904.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Lindsay ISD
School year
Students enrolledLindsay ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
490
First available year
5,468.1
2022–23
486
Decrease of 4 (0.8%)
5,696.8
2023–24
484
Decrease of 2 (0.4%)
5,877.7
2024–25
507
Increase of 23 (4.8%)
6,011.1
2025–26
511
Increase of 4 (0.8%)
5,904.4
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
123
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
33
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
+90
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
123
Selected comparison
281.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 36 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
33
Selected comparison
370.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 31 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
+90
Selected comparison
−86
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 30 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Lindsay ISD
School year
Transfers inLindsay ISD
Transfers outLindsay ISD
In minus outLindsay ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
125
15
+110
251.7
273.8
−15
2022–23
128
19
+109
242.3
279.1
−28
2023–24
125
25
+100
240.8
311.3
−55
2024–25
138
26
+112
261.7
331.6
−58
2025–26
123
33
+90
281.4
370.7
−86
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Gainesville ISD 04990167
Era ISD 04990620
Sivells Bend ISD 04990911
Muenster ISD 04990210
Top reported flows only. TEA published 4 of 9 counterpart counts and masked 5.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Muenster ISD 04990214
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
12
2.4% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
17
3.38 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
503
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
2.4%
Selected comparison
4.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 29 rated districts reporting
−1.8 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
3.38
Selected comparison
7.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 30 rated districts reporting
−3.9 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Lindsay 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
498
15
3.0%
15
3.01
2.9%
4.6
2021–22
490
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2022–23
490
22
4.5%
38
7.76
4.4%
7.3
2023–24
487
17
3.5%
36
7.39
4.3%
7.7
2024–25
503
12
2.4%
17
3.38
4.2%
7.3
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Lindsay ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
12
2.4%
17
3.38
4.2%
7.3
In-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
12
2.39
—
5.3
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
2,304
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
426
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
25
5.9%
School-age child poverty rate
5.9%
25 of 426
Boundary population
This district
2,304
Selected comparison
26,199.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
426
Selected comparison
5,571
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
25
Selected comparison
194.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
5.9%
Selected comparison
6.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
−0.3 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.
2 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
2
Selected comparison
7.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 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
Browse all 2 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.
Lindsay ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$29,134
Selected comparison
$36,335
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
−$7,201 vs similar economic context
This district spends $3,205 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $10,162 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Lindsay ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$10,045
$14,290
$13,054
$18,889
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
2019
$10,476
$14,225
$13,108
$19,669
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
2020
$11,387
$15,250
$14,058
$23,371
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
2021
$11,974
$17,863
$14,797
$26,978
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
2022
$16,408
$19,817
$15,708
$25,574
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
2023
$13,494
$21,827
$16,792
$31,965
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
2024
$18,675
$23,517
$18,125
$34,134
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
2025
$29,134
$25,929
$18,972
$36,335
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 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
$67,138−$509 vs similar economic context
Teachers
43−368.4 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
11.7−1.1 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Lindsay ISD
Beginning 2.3%
1 to 5 years 11.4%
6 to 10 years 15.8%
11 to 20 years 42.2%
21 to 30 years 14.6%
Over 30 years 13.7%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 38 reporting for every category shown · 38 in full cohort
Beginning 5.5%
1 to 5 years 20.4%
6 to 10 years 19%
11 to 20 years 31.8%
21 to 30 years 16.8%
Over 30 years 3.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 11: Fort Worth · 76 reporting for every category shown · 76 in full cohort
Beginning 6.5%
1 to 5 years 23.6%
6 to 10 years 20.2%
11 to 20 years 29.5%
21 to 30 years 16.2%
Over 30 years 4%
Selected comparison averageFor Cooke County · 8 reporting for every category shown · 8 in full cohort
Beginning 8.1%
1 to 5 years 22.6%
6 to 10 years 17%
11 to 20 years 27.4%
21 to 30 years 13.8%
Over 30 years 11.4%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 259 reporting for every category shown · 259 in full cohort
Beginning 6.5%
1 to 5 years 21.3%
6 to 10 years 17.2%
11 to 20 years 29%
21 to 30 years 19.4%
Over 30 years 6.6%
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 10.5% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
10.5%
Selected comparison
17.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 37 rated districts reporting
−6.9 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Lindsay ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateLindsay ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
9.6%
13.6%
2021–22
28.9%
16.5%
2022–23
13.6%
18.8%
2023–24
19.0%
19.5%
2024–25
10.5%
17.4%
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
1 measure
1of 76
Attendance
Region 11: Fort Worth · of the 76 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
2 measures
2of 76
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Region 11: Fort Worth · of the 76 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 72
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
Region 11: Fort Worth · of the 72 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
5 measures
5of 72
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Region 11: Fort Worth · of the 72 that report this measure · tied with 1
5of 33
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 33 that report this measure
7of 76
Reading — Approaches
Region 11: Fort Worth · of the 76 that report this measure · tied with 1
9of 76
Reading — Meets
Region 11: Fort Worth · of the 76 that report this measure
9of 76
Math — Approaches
Region 11: Fort Worth · of the 76 that report this measure · tied with 2
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.