Current strength
Overall score above the similar-context average
90 +8.4 pts vs 81.6
- 90 is 8.4 points above the 81.6 average among 405 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Geographic public school district
Maud ISD
Bowie County · Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 459 students
Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility
- Current score
- 90/1002025-26
- Change
- −3 ptssince 2021-22
- Score vs similar economic context
- +8.4 ptsvs 81.6 average · 405 rated districts serving a similar economic context
- Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
- 37 of 405tied with 6 others
- Score vs region
- +7.3 ptsvs 82.7 average · 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant
- Region 08: Mt Pleasant placement
- 6 of 46tied with 2 others
- Score vs county
- +7.8 ptsvs 82.2 average · 13 rated districts in Bowie County
- Bowie County placement
- 2 of 13tied with 2 others
- Score vs similar-size group
- +6.8 ptsvs 83.2 average · 242 similarly sized rated districts
- Similar size placement
- 44 of 242tied with 11 others
- Score vs state
- +8.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
- Texas placement
- 129 of 1,019tied with 36 others
A90
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 92 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 81.6 average for 405 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 82.7 average for 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant.The current score is above the 82.2 average for 13 rated districts in Bowie County.The current score is above the 83.2 average for 242 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
Closing the Gaps above the similar-context average
92 +12.8 pts vs 79.2
- 92 is 12.8 points above the 79.2 average among 404 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Current strength
School Progress above the similar-context average
88 +6.6 pts vs 81.4
- 88 is 6.6 points above the 81.4 average among 405 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Current strength
Closing the Gaps above the Region 08: Mt Pleasant average
92 +11.9 pts vs 80.1
- 92 is 11.9 points above the 80.1 average among 46 districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
- 3rd of 46 districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
Current strength
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA above the Region 08: Mt Pleasant average
44.4% +24.1 pts vs 20.3%
- 44.4% is 24.1 percentage points above the 20.3% average among 42 districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
- 3rd of 42 districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
Current strength
Overall score above the Region 08: Mt Pleasant average
90 +7.3 pts vs 82.7
- 90 is 7.3 points above the 82.7 average among 46 districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
Top placement
Closing the Gaps
92 1st of 13 districts in Bowie County reporting this measure · 2025-26
See the full measureTop placement
Overall score
90 Tied for 2nd of 13 districts in Bowie County reporting this measure · 2025-26 · 3 share this value
See the full measureTop placement
Relative Performance
88 3rd of 13 districts in Bowie County reporting this measure · 2025-26
See the full measureCurrent strength
Overall score above the similar-size average
90 +6.8 pts vs 83.2
- 90 is 6.8 points above the 83.2 average among 242 similarly sized districts reporting this measure.
Current strength
Closing the Gaps above the similar-size average
92 +11.3 pts vs 80.7
- 92 is 11.3 points above the 80.7 average among 242 similarly sized districts reporting this measure.
Current strength
School Progress above the similar-size average
88 +6.3 pts vs 81.7
- 88 is 6.3 points above the 81.7 average among 242 similarly sized districts reporting this measure.
Current strength
Overall score above the Texas average
90 +8.3 pts vs 81.7
- 90 is 8.3 points above the 81.7 average among 1,019 Texas districts reporting this measure.
Current strength
Closing the Gaps above the Texas average
92 +12.9 pts vs 79.1
- 92 is 12.9 points above the 79.1 average among 1,015 Texas districts reporting this measure.
Current strength
School Progress above the Texas average
88 +7.4 pts vs 80.6
- 88 is 7.4 points above the 80.6 average among 1,019 Texas districts reporting this measure.
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
Maud ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 90 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.6 average for 405 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 37th of 405 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 6 others).
Maud ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 90 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.7 average for 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 6th of 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant (tied with 2 others).
Maud ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 90 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.2 average for 13 rated districts in Bowie County. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 2nd of 13 rated districts in Bowie County (tied with 2 others).
Maud ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 90 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 83.2 average for 242 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 44th of 242 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 11 others).
Maud ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 90 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 129th of 1,019 rated Texas districts (tied with 36 others).
Put the numbers in context
Compare with
Jump to a section
- Overview
- 5 years of ratings
- Where the score comes from
- Student outcomes
- After high school: the following fall
- Who this district serves
- Student counts behind the percentages
- Enrollment over time
- Students crossing district lines
- Discipline and removal from class
- Community around the district
- 1 schools in this district
- Spending per student
- Teachers
- Where this district ranks best
- Where this comes from
5 years of ratings
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.
View the yearly scores and comparisons
| Year | Rating | Score | Selected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rate | StateTexas average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | A | 90 | 81.6 405 reporting | 81.7 1,019 reporting |
| 2024-25 | A | 94 | 80.6 405 reporting | 80.3 1,019 reporting |
| 2023-24 | B | 89 | 78.7 405 reporting | 78.7 1,017 reporting |
| 2022-23 | A | 93 | 79.2 405 reporting | 79.2 1,018 reporting |
| 2021-22 | A | 93 | 80.2 404 reporting | 80.6 1,017 reporting |
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.
- Maud ISD
- Similar economic-disadvantage rate (405 in cohort)
| Domain | Score | Grade | Points to next grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Achievement | 89 | B | 1 |
| School Progress | 88 | B | 2 |
| Closing the Gaps | 92 | A | — |
| Academic Growth | 60 | D | 10 |
| Relative Performance | 88 | B | 2 |
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 1 point 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 (89), so School Progress (88) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 89.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
- Approaches grade level
- Meets grade level
- Masters grade level
- Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (405 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%+3.9 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 393 rated districts reporting
- Five-Year
- 100.0%+3.6 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 390 rated districts reporting
- Six-Year
- 100.0%+3.7 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 388 rated districts reporting
- Dropout Rate
- 0.0%−0.4 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 395 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
- 96.0%+6.9 pts vs similar economic context
| Criterion | This district% of graduates | Averagesimilar economic context | Differencepercentage points | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total credit for CCMR criteria | 96.0% | 89.1% | +6.9 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 392 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course | 81.5% | 56.6% | +24.9 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA | 44.4% | 26.5% | +17.9 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s) | 0.0% | 5.6% | −5.6 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Earned college credit for a dual credit course | 55.6% | 35.0% | +20.6 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an industry-based certification | 70.4% | 42.3% | +28.1 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Earned a level I or level II certificate | 3.7% | 1.5% | +2.2 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Earned an associate degree | 0.0% | 3.0% | −3.0 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit | 0.0% | 3.3% | −3.3 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness | 0.0% | 3.2% | −3.2 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student | 7.4% | 8.3% | −0.9 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting |
| Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces | 0.0% | 3.8% | −3.8 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 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.
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
- 34
Class of 2023–24
- Enrolled in Texas public higher education
- 11
32.4% of graduates
- Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
- 23
67.6% of graduates
- Not trackable
- 0
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
- This district
- 34
- Selected comparison
- 379
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
- This district
- 11
- Selected comparison
- 162
Texas-public enrollment rate
- This district
- 32.4%
- Selected comparison
- 45.6%
Not-found rate
- This district
- 67.6%
- Selected comparison
- 51.2%
Not-trackable rate
- This district
- 0.0%
- Selected comparison
- 3.2%
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
- 459
- Economically disadvantaged
- 57.1%−0.2 pts vs similar economic context
- English learners
- 0.0%−10.0 pts vs similar economic context
- Special education
- 18.3%−0.2 pts vs similar economic context
- Attendance
- 95.3%+0.7 pts vs similar economic context
- Chronically absent
- 10.6%−3.8 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Maud ISD
- African American 4.8%
- Hispanic 8.5%
- White 77.1%
- American Indian 0.2%
- Pacific Islander 0.9%
- Two or More Races 8.5%
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 reporting for every category shown · 405 in full cohort
- African American 5.2%
- Hispanic 38.5%
- White 51.1%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 1%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 3.7%
Selected comparison average For Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 46 reporting for every category shown · 46 in full cohort
- African American 11.7%
- Hispanic 18.5%
- White 62.5%
- American Indian 0.5%
- Asian 0.5%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 6.2%
Selected comparison average For Bowie County · 13 reporting for every category shown · 13 in full cohort
- African American 14%
- Hispanic 10.3%
- White 67.2%
- American Indian 0.5%
- Asian 0.6%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 7.2%
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 242 reporting for every category shown · 242 in full cohort
- African American 3.6%
- Hispanic 39%
- White 53.6%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 0.4%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 3%
Statewide average 1,019 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
- 459
- Economically disadvantaged students
- 262
- Emergent bilingual students
- 0
- Special education students
- 84
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 459 students in 2025–26, an increase of 9 (2.0%) from 2024–25.
- Latest enrollment
- 459
2025–26
- Change from 2024–25
- +9
Increase · +2.0%
- Change since 2021–22
- −15
Decrease · −3.2%
Enrollment in 2025–26
- This district
- 459
- Selected comparison
- 3,847.8
| School year | Students enrolledMaud ISD | Change from previous school year | Average enrollmentselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 474 | First available year | 3,816.2 |
| 2022–23 | 476 | Increase of 2 (0.4%) | 3,873.4 |
| 2023–24 | 456 | Decrease of 20 (4.2%) | 3,875.6 |
| 2024–25 | 450 | Decrease of 6 (1.3%) | 3,890.8 |
| 2025–26 | 459 | Increase of 9 (2.0%) | 3,847.8 |
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
- 44
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
- Transfers out
- 81
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
- Transfers in minus transfers out
- −37
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
- This district
- 44
- Selected comparison
- 213
Transfers out · 2025–26
- This district
- 81
- Selected comparison
- 483.4
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
- This district
- −37
- Selected comparison
- −282
| School year | Transfers inMaud ISD | Transfers outMaud ISD | In minus outMaud ISD | Transfers inselected comparison average | Transfers outselected comparison average | In minus outselected comparison average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 58 | 86 | −28 | 177.6 | 382.4 | −213 |
| 2022–23 | 43 | 71 | −28 | 192.3 | 412.7 | −231 |
| 2023–24 | 50 | 79 | −29 | 186.6 | 436 | −259 |
| 2024–25 | 46 | 81 | −35 | 200.5 | 471.6 | −278 |
| 2025–26 | 44 | 81 | −37 | 213 | 483.4 | −282 |
Largest reported origins for transfers in
- New Boston ISD 01990520
- Redwater ISD 01990610
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 8 counterpart counts and masked 6.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
- Redwater ISD 01990638
- Texarkana ISD 01990712
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 13 counterpart counts and masked 11.
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
- 44
9.3% of cumulative year-end enrollment
- Disciplinary actions
- 75
15.79 per 100 students
- Cumulative year-end enrollment
- 475
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
- This district
- 9.3%
- Selected comparison
- 10.6%
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
- This district
- 15.79
- Selected comparison
- 22.9
| School year | Cumulative enrollment | Studentsall discipline | Students% of enrollment | Actionsall discipline | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 507 | 34 | 6.7% | 52 | 10.26 | 8.4% | 16.5 |
| 2021–22 | 504 | 39 | 7.7% | 69 | 13.69 | 10.7% | 23.1 |
| 2022–23 | 515 | 46 | 8.9% | 101 | 19.61 | 11.1% | 24.4 |
| 2023–24 | 484 | 33 | 6.8% | 63 | 13.02 | 11.0% | 24.1 |
| 2024–25 | 475 | 44 | 9.3% | 75 | 15.79 | 10.6% | 22.9 |
See 2024–25 discipline categories
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | 44 | 9.3% | 75 | 15.79 | 10.6% | 22.9 |
| In-school suspensions | 35 | 7.4% | 54 | 11.37 | 9.3% | 17.3 |
| Out-of-school suspensions | 14 | 3.0% | 19 | 4.00 | 3.3% | 4.9 |
| 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
- 2,101
2024 Census estimate
- Children ages 5–17
- 402
Living inside the boundary
- Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
- 59
14.7%
- School-age child poverty rate
- 14.7%
59 of 402
Boundary population
- This district
- 2,101
- Selected comparison
- 24,228
School-age population
- This district
- 402
- Selected comparison
- 4,259.7
School-age population in poverty
- This district
- 59
- Selected comparison
- 605.6
School-age child poverty rate
- This district
- 14.7%
- Selected comparison
- 17.1%
Population averages provide neutral scale context and can differ sharply across a region, county or the state. The poverty-rate comparison is the like-for-like percentage; none of these Census measures is treated as school performance.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, fetched 24 August 2026. These are modeled estimates for residents inside the geographic district, not the students enrolled by the district. A family's poverty status is context, never a school-quality measure.
1 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
- This district
- 1
- Selected comparison
- 6.3
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
Browse all 1 schoolsName, type, rating, score and enrollment
| School | Type | Rating | Score | Students |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maud School | K-12 | A | 90 | 459 |
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.
- Maud ISD
- TEA peer group
- Texas average
- Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
- This district
- $23,352
- Selected comparison
- $23,636
This district spends $2,577 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $4,380 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
| Year | Maud ISD | TEA peer group | Texas average | Selected comparison average | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $12,381 | $14,290 | $13,054 | $14,423 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 rated districts reporting |
| 2019 | $12,698 | $14,384 | $13,108 | $14,627 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 rated districts reporting |
| 2020 | $12,961 | $16,581 | $14,058 | $15,623 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 rated districts reporting |
| 2021 | $13,389 | $17,863 | $14,797 | $16,660 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 rated districts reporting |
| 2022 | $15,077 | $19,817 | $15,708 | $18,326 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 rated districts reporting |
| 2023 | $16,564 | $21,827 | $16,792 | $20,133 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 rated districts reporting |
| 2024 | $17,597 | $23,517 | $18,125 | $22,400 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 rated districts reporting |
| 2025 | $23,352 | $25,929 | $18,972 | $23,636 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 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
- $64,158−$230 vs similar economic context
- Teachers
- 38−225.4 vs similar economic context
- Students per staff member
- 12−0.2 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Maud ISD
- Beginning 11%
- 1 to 5 years 20.4%
- 6 to 10 years 12.8%
- 11 to 20 years 33%
- 21 to 30 years 20.4%
- Over 30 years 2.6%
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 reporting for every category shown · 405 in full cohort
- Beginning 6.5%
- 1 to 5 years 23.8%
- 6 to 10 years 17.2%
- 11 to 20 years 28.5%
- 21 to 30 years 18%
- Over 30 years 6%
Selected comparison average For Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 46 reporting for every category shown · 46 in full cohort
- Beginning 6%
- 1 to 5 years 23.2%
- 6 to 10 years 18.1%
- 11 to 20 years 28.8%
- 21 to 30 years 17.8%
- Over 30 years 6.1%
Selected comparison average For Bowie County · 13 reporting for every category shown · 13 in full cohort
- Beginning 6.2%
- 1 to 5 years 20.3%
- 6 to 10 years 19.5%
- 11 to 20 years 32.7%
- 21 to 30 years 16.1%
- Over 30 years 5.3%
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 242 reporting for every category shown · 242 in full cohort
- Beginning 6.4%
- 1 to 5 years 21.2%
- 6 to 10 years 17.2%
- 11 to 20 years 28.9%
- 21 to 30 years 19.8%
- Over 30 years 6.5%
Statewide average 1,019 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 22.0% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
- This district
- 22.0%
- Selected comparison
- 21.3%
| School year | Teacher turnover rateMaud ISD | Average turnover rateselected comparison |
|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 13.0% | 16.4% |
| 2021–22 | 23.8% | 20.0% |
| 2022–23 | 12.9% | 23.4% |
| 2023–24 | 19.6% | 21.1% |
| 2024–25 | 22.0% | 21.3% |
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 district ranks best
Out of 184 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 13
Closing the Gaps
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
3 measures
-
2of 13
Overall score
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 2 · full ranking
-
3of 42
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
-
3of 13
Relative Performance
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
24 measures
-
4of 13
Student Achievement
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
4of 13
School Progress
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
4of 13
Per-student spending
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
6of 13
Math — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
6of 13
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
6of 11
Social Studies — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 11 that report this measure
-
7of 42
Earned an industry-based certification
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
-
7of 13
Reading — Masters
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
7of 13
Math — Meets
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
7of 13
Math — Masters
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
7of 13
Attendance
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
8of 13
All Subjects — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
8of 13
All Subjects — Meets
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
8of 13
All Subjects — Masters
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
8of 13
Reading — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
8of 13
Reading — Meets
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
8of 11
Social Studies — Masters
Bowie County · of the 11 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
9of 42
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
-
9of 13
Science — Meets
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
9of 13
Science — Masters
Bowie County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
9of 11
Social Studies — Meets
Bowie County · of the 11 that report this measure
-
10of 42
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
10of 42
Earned a level I or level II certificate
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
-
10of 13
Science — Approaches
Bowie County · of the 13 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.