+3.6 ptsvs 82.4 average · 358 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
96 of 358tied with 22 others
Score vs region
+3.3 ptsvs 82.7 average · 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant
Region 08: Mt Pleasant placement
17 of 46tied with 5 others
Score vs similar-size group
+5.6 ptsvs 80.4 average · 229 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
48 of 229tied with 7 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 up; under the rules in force back then it scored 90 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 82.4 average for 358 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 80.4 average for 229 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
55%vs 51.7% avg · +3.3 pts
Masters
23%vs 20.4% avg · +2.6 pts
Among 358 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
Mount Vernon ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.4 average for 358 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 96th of 358 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 22 others).
Mount Vernon ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.7 average for 46 rated districts in Region 08: Mt Pleasant. It is up 3 points since 2021-22.
Mount Vernon ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 86 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.4 average for 229 similarly sized rated districts. It is up 3 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 48th of 229 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 7 others).
Mount Vernon 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 up 3 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 90 that year.
Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.
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+3.2 vs similar economic context · 358 reporting
School Progress85 B+3.7 vs similar economic context · 358 reporting
Closing the Gaps85 B+4.9 vs similar economic context · 357 reporting
Academic Growth77 C+4.0 vs similar economic context · 358 reporting
Relative Performance85 B+4.3 vs similar economic context · 358 reporting
Mount Vernon ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (358 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
86
B
4
School Progress
85
B
5
Closing the Gaps
85
B
5
Academic Growth
77
C
3
Relative Performance
85
B
5
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 (85) 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 level81%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Meets grade level55%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Masters grade level23%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level81%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Meets grade level58%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Masters grade level24%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level84%+10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Meets grade level54%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Masters grade level22%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level75%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 357 reporting
Meets grade level49%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 357 reporting
Masters grade level25%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 357 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level77%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 351 reporting
Meets grade level50%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 351 reporting
Masters grade level24%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 351 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (358 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%+4.2 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 347 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
99.1%+3.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 344 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
95.9%−0.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 345 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.4%±0.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 348 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
99.0%+10.4 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
99.0%
88.6%
+10.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 345 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
90.9%
55.9%
+35.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
25.8%
28.5%
−2.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
0.8%
6.9%
−6.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
34.1%
36.0%
−1.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
65.9%
41.6%
+24.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
1.5%
1.5%
+0.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
2.4%
−2.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
3.3%
−3.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
2.3%
3.1%
−0.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
6.8%
8.2%
−1.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
6.1%
3.6%
+2.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 346 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
103
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
56
54.4% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
45
43.7% of graduates
Not trackable
2
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
103
Selected comparison
427.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 272 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
56
Selected comparison
185.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 272 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
54.4%
Selected comparison
47.0%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 272 rated districts reporting
+7.4 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
43.7%
Selected comparison
49.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 272 rated districts reporting
−6.2 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
1.9%
Selected comparison
3.1%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 272 rated districts reporting
−1.2 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
NORTHEAST TEXAS COMM COLLEGE (023154)24
EAST TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY (003565)9
TYLER JUNIOR COLLEGE (003648)7
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
1,515
Economically disadvantaged
51.1%−0.9 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
14.3%+5.4 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
16.8%−1.4 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.7%−0.1 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
14.5%+0.9 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Mount Vernon ISD
African American 4.2%
Hispanic 28.2%
White 61.4%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.9%
Two or More Races 5.2%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting for every category shown · 358 in full cohort
African American 4.9%
Hispanic 34.6%
White 55.2%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 1.1%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.7%
Selected comparison averageFor 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 averageFor similarly sized districts · 229 reporting for every category shown · 229 in full cohort
African American 6.1%
Hispanic 42.4%
White 46.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.7%
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
1,514
Economically disadvantaged students
774
Emergent bilingual students
217
Special education students
254
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 1,515 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 93 (5.8%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
1,515
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−93
Decrease · −5.8%
Change since 2021–22
−13
Decrease · −0.9%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
1,515
Selected comparison
4,564.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Mount Vernon ISD
School year
Students enrolledMount Vernon ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
1,528
First available year
4,444.7
2022–23
1,571
Increase of 43 (2.8%)
4,536.1
2023–24
1,563
Decrease of 8 (0.5%)
4,568
2024–25
1,608
Increase of 45 (2.9%)
4,600.2
2025–26
1,515
Decrease of 93 (5.8%)
4,564.7
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
80
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
109
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−29
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
80
Selected comparison
242.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 341 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
109
Selected comparison
523.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 337 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−29
Selected comparison
−293
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 324 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Mount Vernon ISD
School year
Transfers inMount Vernon ISD
Transfers outMount Vernon ISD
In minus outMount Vernon ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
84
117
−33
200.2
410.3
−220
2022–23
54
115
−61
203.4
444
−250
2023–24
70
105
−35
209.9
457.6
−259
2024–25
87
115
−28
226.6
507.4
−291
2025–26
80
109
−29
242.9
523.5
−293
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Mount Pleasant ISD 22590236
Saltillo ISD 11290911
Winnsboro ISD 25090711
Top reported flows only. TEA published 3 of 13 counterpart counts and masked 10.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Winnsboro ISD 25090724
Mount Pleasant ISD 22590216
Saltillo ISD 11290912
Harts Bluff ISD 22590711
Hallsville ISD 10290410
Top reported flows only. TEA published 5 of 16 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
142
8.3% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
256
14.88 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
1,721
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
8.3%
Selected comparison
10.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 313 rated districts reporting
−1.9 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
14.88
Selected comparison
21.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 321 rated districts reporting
−6.9 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Mount Vernon 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
1,636
124
7.6%
192
11.74
8.0%
15.6
2021–22
1,633
180
11.0%
440
26.94
10.2%
21.9
2022–23
1,676
171
10.2%
454
27.09
10.7%
23.1
2023–24
1,674
157
9.4%
321
19.18
10.5%
23
2024–25
1,721
142
8.3%
256
14.88
10.2%
21.8
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Mount Vernon ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
142
8.3%
256
14.88
10.2%
21.8
In-school suspensions
111
6.5%
186
10.81
8.9%
16.5
Out-of-school suspensions
16
0.9%
18
1.05
3.1%
4.6
DAEP placements
45
2.6%
52
3.02
2.4%
2.8
Mandatory DAEP placements
18
1.1%
18
1.05
1.5%
1.8
Discretionary DAEP placements
30
1.7%
34
1.98
1.2%
1.4
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
9,254
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
1,511
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
260
17.2%
School-age child poverty rate
17.2%
260 of 1,511
Boundary population
This district
9,254
Selected comparison
27,822.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
1,511
Selected comparison
5,000
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
260
Selected comparison
637.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
17.2%
Selected comparison
15.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
+1.9 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
6.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 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.
Mount Vernon ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$33,044
Selected comparison
$23,633
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
+$9,411 vs similar economic context
This district spends $13,554 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $14,072 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Mount Vernon ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$11,764
$12,629
$13,054
$14,086
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
2019
$11,249
$12,702
$13,108
$14,389
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
2020
$11,477
$13,729
$14,058
$15,605
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
2021
$12,703
$14,629
$14,797
$16,436
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
2022
$13,996
$15,859
$15,708
$18,067
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
2023
$15,303
$17,414
$16,792
$19,725
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
2024
$28,146
$19,844
$18,125
$22,297
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
2025
$33,044
$19,490
$18,972
$23,633
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 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
$68,479+$3,260 vs similar economic context
Teachers
119−193.5 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
12.7+0.3 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Mount Vernon ISD
Beginning 3.7%
1 to 5 years 29.8%
6 to 10 years 11.9%
11 to 20 years 31.5%
21 to 30 years 17.6%
Over 30 years 5.5%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 reporting for every category shown · 358 in full cohort
Beginning 5.9%
1 to 5 years 22.5%
6 to 10 years 17.7%
11 to 20 years 29.6%
21 to 30 years 18.4%
Over 30 years 6%
Selected comparison averageFor 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 averageFor similarly sized districts · 229 reporting for every category shown · 229 in full cohort
Beginning 5.4%
1 to 5 years 23.9%
6 to 10 years 17.5%
11 to 20 years 29.4%
21 to 30 years 18.5%
Over 30 years 5.4%
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 22.5% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
22.5%
Selected comparison
19.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 358 rated districts reporting
+2.8 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Mount Vernon ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateMount Vernon ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
14.1%
15.4%
2021–22
17.4%
18.9%
2022–23
23.7%
22.0%
2023–24
23.1%
20.7%
2024–25
22.5%
19.7%
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.
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
2 measures
3of 46
Per-student spending
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 46 that report this measure
3of 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
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
6 measures
7of 46
Math — Approaches
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 46 that report this measure · tied with 1
8of 42
College, career or military ready
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure · tied with 1
8of 42
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
10of 46
Math — Meets
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 46 that report this measure · tied with 1
10of 42
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 that report this measure
10of 42
Earned an industry-based certification
Region 08: Mt Pleasant · of the 42 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.