+1.8 ptsvs 83.2 average · 305 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
116 of 305tied with 14 others
Score vs region
+3.0 ptsvs 82 average · 80 rated districts in Region 10: Richardson
Region 10: Richardson placement
29 of 80tied with 3 others
Score vs county
+5.1 ptsvs 79.9 average · 10 rated districts in Hunt County
Hunt County placement
4 of 10among reporting districts
Score vs similar-size group
+3.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 273 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
79 of 273tied with 15 others
Score vs state
+3.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
350 of 1,019tied with 50 others
B85
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is flat; under the rules in force back then it scored 92 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 83.2 average for 305 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 82 average for 80 rated districts in Region 10: Richardson.The current score is above the 79.9 average for 10 rated districts in Hunt County.The current score is above the 81.7 average for 273 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
STAAR result
All Subjects above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters
Meets
56%vs 53.6% avg · +2.4 pts
Masters
23%vs 21.8% avg · +1.2 pts
Among 305 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
A precomputed strengths set is not available for this pinned entity. The page’s direct numeric comparisons still update to that pin.
Selected positive signals, not a summary of performance. The same rules choose them on every page: only the latest one-year gain, results meaningfully better than the currently selected comparison with broad reporting, and distinctive top-three placements. Demographics, staffing and spending cannot become academic “wins.” The overall rating and the full results below remain the complete picture for this district.
Read the full rating context and placement
Lone Oak ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 83.2 average for 305 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 116th of 305 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 14 others).
Lone Oak ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82 average for 80 rated districts in Region 10: Richardson. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Lone Oak ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 79.9 average for 10 rated districts in Hunt County. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Lone Oak ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 273 similarly sized rated districts. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 79th of 273 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 15 others).
Lone Oak ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 85 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is unchanged 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
33.3%
Selected comparison
16.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
+16.9 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
1.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
−1.3 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Lone Oak ISD
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 A with 92 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 Achievement85 B+1.2 vs similar economic context · 305 reporting
School Progress82 B+0.6 vs similar economic context · 305 reporting
Closing the Gaps84 B+3.0 vs similar economic context · 304 reporting
Academic Growth76 C+1.9 vs similar economic context · 305 reporting
Relative Performance82 B+1.5 vs similar economic context · 305 reporting
Lone Oak ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (305 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
85
B
5
School Progress
82
B
8
Closing the Gaps
84
B
6
Academic Growth
76
C
4
Relative Performance
82
B
8
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 5 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 (85), so
School Progress (82) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 85.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level82%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Meets grade level56%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Masters grade level23%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level83%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Meets grade level58%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Masters grade level25%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level78%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Meets grade level51%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Masters grade level18%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level87%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 304 reporting
Meets grade level59%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 304 reporting
Masters grade level26%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 304 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level85%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 297 reporting
Meets grade level65%+13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 297 reporting
Masters grade level27%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 297 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (305 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
95.8%+0.1 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 293 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
98.6%+2.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
98.5%+2.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 291 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.3%±0.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 294 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
93.0%+3.6 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
93.0%
89.4%
+3.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 291 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
78.6%
58.4%
+20.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
34.3%
30.5%
+3.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
15.7%
8.0%
+7.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
44.3%
37.1%
+7.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
50.0%
42.1%
+7.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
1.5%
−1.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
2.5%
−2.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
4.4%
−4.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
10.0%
3.0%
+7.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
11.4%
8.0%
+3.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
1.4%
3.3%
−1.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 292 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
69
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
37
53.6% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
31
44.9% of graduates
Not trackable
1
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
69
Selected comparison
444.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 236 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
37
Selected comparison
195.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 236 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
53.6%
Selected comparison
48.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 236 rated districts reporting
+5.4 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
44.9%
Selected comparison
48.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 236 rated districts reporting
−3.5 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
1.4%
Selected comparison
3.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 236 rated districts reporting
−1.9 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
EAST TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY (003565)9
PARIS JUNIOR COLLEGE (003601)8
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
1,091
Economically disadvantaged
46.3%−1.1 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
7.1%−1.2 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
18.3%+0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
96.3%+1.4 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
6.3%−6.2 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Lone Oak ISD
African American 0.8%
Hispanic 21.7%
White 70.9%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 0.1%
Pacific Islander 0.3%
Two or More Races 5.8%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting for every category shown · 305 in full cohort
African American 4.3%
Hispanic 33.5%
White 56.8%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 1.3%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 10: Richardson · 80 reporting for every category shown · 80 in full cohort
African American 12.1%
Hispanic 33.2%
White 44.6%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.4%
Selected comparison averageFor Hunt County · 10 reporting for every category shown · 10 in full cohort
African American 5.4%
Hispanic 33.3%
White 55.7%
American Indian 0.5%
Asian 0.4%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 273 reporting for every category shown · 273 in full cohort
African American 5%
Hispanic 40.6%
White 49.8%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.6%
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
1,090
Economically disadvantaged students
505
Emergent bilingual students
77
Special education students
199
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 1,091 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 46 (4.0%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
1,091
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−46
Decrease · −4.0%
Change since 2021–22
+64
Increase · +6.2%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
1,091
Selected comparison
4,837
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Lone Oak ISD
School year
Students enrolledLone Oak ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
1,027
First available year
4,703.4
2022–23
1,083
Increase of 56 (5.5%)
4,802.9
2023–24
1,146
Increase of 63 (5.8%)
4,838.1
2024–25
1,137
Decrease of 9 (0.8%)
4,871.9
2025–26
1,091
Decrease of 46 (4.0%)
4,837
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
80
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
+43
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
123
Selected comparison
263.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 295 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
80
Selected comparison
559.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 283 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
+43
Selected comparison
−301
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 276 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Lone Oak ISD
School year
Transfers inLone Oak ISD
Transfers outLone Oak ISD
In minus outLone Oak ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
93
66
+27
215.7
425
−217
2022–23
133
77
+56
218.6
466.3
−253
2023–24
158
79
+79
228.7
476.6
−256
2024–25
159
71
+88
246.7
538.4
−297
2025–26
123
80
+43
263.7
559.9
−301
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Greenville ISD 11690558
Rains ISD 19090332
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 12 counterpart counts and masked 10.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Hallsville ISD 10290412
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 26 counterpart counts and masked 25.
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
81
6.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
126
10.37 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
1,215
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
6.7%
Selected comparison
9.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 267 rated districts reporting
−2.9 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
10.37
Selected comparison
20.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 273 rated districts reporting
−9.9 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Lone Oak 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
1,079
54
5.0%
79
7.32
7.7%
14.7
2021–22
1,113
100
9.0%
153
13.75
9.7%
20.4
2022–23
1,163
101
8.7%
187
16.08
10.3%
21.7
2023–24
1,217
122
10.0%
232
19.06
10.1%
21.8
2024–25
1,215
81
6.7%
126
10.37
9.6%
20.3
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Lone Oak ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
81
6.7%
126
10.37
9.6%
20.3
In-school suspensions
68
5.6%
93
7.65
8.5%
15.4
Out-of-school suspensions
14
1.1%
15
1.23
2.9%
4.1
DAEP placements
17
1.4%
18
1.48
2.2%
2.6
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
6,214
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
1,232
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
105
8.5%
School-age child poverty rate
8.5%
105 of 1,232
Boundary population
This district
6,214
Selected comparison
30,053.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
1,232
Selected comparison
5,307.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
105
Selected comparison
620
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
8.5%
Selected comparison
14.0%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
−5.5 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.
3 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
3
Selected comparison
7.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 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
Middle / Jr. High
1
Browse all 3 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.
Lone Oak ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$26,969
Selected comparison
$22,858
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
+$4,111 vs similar economic context
This district spends $7,208 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $7,997 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Lone Oak ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$10,594
$13,246
$13,054
$13,983
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
2019
$12,414
$12,865
$13,108
$14,190
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
2020
$15,075
$15,250
$14,058
$15,357
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
2021
$13,204
$15,636
$14,797
$16,274
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
2022
$17,266
$15,859
$15,708
$17,774
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
2023
$25,946
$17,414
$16,792
$19,550
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
2024
$32,147
$19,844
$18,125
$21,916
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
2025
$26,969
$19,761
$18,972
$22,858
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 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
$68,872+$3,680 vs similar economic context
Teachers
83−247.9 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
13.1+0.4 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Lone Oak ISD
Beginning 6.1%
1 to 5 years 14.6%
6 to 10 years 18.7%
11 to 20 years 34.3%
21 to 30 years 21.1%
Over 30 years 5.2%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 reporting for every category shown · 305 in full cohort
Beginning 5.4%
1 to 5 years 22.4%
6 to 10 years 17.5%
11 to 20 years 30.3%
21 to 30 years 18.9%
Over 30 years 5.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 10: Richardson · 80 reporting for every category shown · 80 in full cohort
Beginning 6.6%
1 to 5 years 25%
6 to 10 years 18.8%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 16.7%
Over 30 years 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Hunt County · 10 reporting for every category shown · 10 in full cohort
Beginning 5%
1 to 5 years 25.4%
6 to 10 years 18.2%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 17.8%
Over 30 years 4.7%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 273 reporting for every category shown · 273 in full cohort
Beginning 5.6%
1 to 5 years 22.6%
6 to 10 years 17.5%
11 to 20 years 29.3%
21 to 30 years 18.8%
Over 30 years 5.8%
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 13.5% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
13.5%
Selected comparison
18.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 305 rated districts reporting
−5.4 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Lone Oak ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateLone Oak ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
17.1%
15.0%
2021–22
21.7%
18.2%
2022–23
19.8%
21.1%
2023–24
14.9%
19.9%
2024–25
13.5%
18.9%
TEA defines this district rate as the share of teacher full-time equivalents from the prior fall who are not employed as teachers in the district in the current fall. That can include leaving the district or remaining in a different role; it is not a campus-level measure. The comparison average changes with the selected group; this district's reported rate does not.
Out of 200 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
4 measures
1of 10
Science — Approaches
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
1of 10
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
1of 10
Attendance
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
1of 10
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
11 measures
2of 10
Closing the Gaps
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 2
2of 10
Reading — Masters
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 10
Math — Meets
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
2of 10
Social Studies — Meets
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
2of 10
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
2of 10
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
3of 10
All Subjects — Masters
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
3of 10
Reading — Approaches
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
3of 10
Reading — Meets
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
3of 10
Earned an industry-based certification
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
3of 10
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
22 measures
4of 10
Overall score
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · full ranking
4of 10
Student Achievement
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
School Progress
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 10
Academic Growth
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
Relative Performance
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 10
All Subjects — Approaches
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
All Subjects — Meets
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
Math — Approaches
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
Math — Masters
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
Science — Meets
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
Social Studies — Approaches
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
Social Studies — Masters
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
4of 10
Per-student spending
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
5of 10
Science — Masters
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure · tied with 1
5of 10
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
6of 10
Six-Year Graduation Rate
Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure
6of 10
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
7of 10
Dropout Rate (lowest is best)
Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure
7of 10
College, career or military ready
Hunt County · of the 10 that report this measure
8of 10
Four-Year Graduation Rate
Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure
8of 10
Five-Year Graduation Rate
Hunt County (standard accountability only) · of the 10 that report this measure
9of 10
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
Hunt County · of the 10 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.