+6.7 ptsvs 81.3 average · 407 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
57 of 407tied with 21 others
Score vs region
+3.4 ptsvs 84.6 average · 37 rated districts in Region 09: Wichita Falls
Region 09: Wichita Falls placement
11 of 37tied with 4 others
Score vs county
±0.0 ptsvs 88 average · 3 rated districts in Knox County
Score vs similar-size group
+4.8 ptsvs 83.2 average · 220 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
69 of 220tied with 10 others
Score vs state
+6.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
210 of 1,019tied with 42 others
B88
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 88 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 81.3 average for 407 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 84.6 average for 37 rated districts in Region 09: Wichita Falls.The current score is level with the 88 average for 3 rated districts in Knox County.The current score is above the 83.2 average for 220 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 48.8% avg · +7.2 pts
Masters
22%vs 18.2% avg · +3.8 pts
Among 407 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
Munday CISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.3 average for 407 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 57th of 407 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 21 others).
Munday CISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 84.6 average for 37 rated districts in Region 09: Wichita Falls. It is up 5 points since 2021-22.
Munday CISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — level with the 88 average for 3 rated districts in Knox County. It is up 5 points since 2021-22.
Munday CISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 83.2 average for 220 similarly sized rated districts. It is up 5 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 69th of 220 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 10 others).
Munday CISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 88 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is up 5 points since 2021-22.
Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
Compare against
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated B with 88 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 Achievement90 A+8.7 vs similar economic context · 407 reporting
School Progress91 A+9.7 vs similar economic context · 407 reporting
Closing the Gaps82 B+3.1 vs similar economic context · 406 reporting
Academic Growth69 D−2.7 vs similar economic context · 407 reporting
Relative Performance91 A+10.2 vs similar economic context · 407 reporting
Munday CISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (407 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
90
A
—
School Progress
91
A
—
Closing the Gaps
82
B
8
Academic Growth
69
D
1
Relative Performance
91
A
—
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 8 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 School Progress (91), so
Student Achievement (90) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 91.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level83%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Meets grade level56%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Masters grade level22%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level82%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Meets grade level59%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Masters grade level23%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level77%+6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Meets grade level56%+14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Masters grade level22%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level94%+15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 reporting
Meets grade level60%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 reporting
Masters grade level26%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 405 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level81%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 398 reporting
Meets grade level35%−13 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 398 reporting
Masters grade level13%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 398 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (407 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
95.2%−0.9 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 393 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+3.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 389 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
100.0%+3.7 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 388 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts 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
100.0%+10.7 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%
89.3%
+10.7
average fordistricts 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
100.0%
56.5%
+43.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
15.8%
26.0%
−10.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
0.0%
5.5%
−5.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
21.1%
34.8%
−13.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
0.0%
42.6%
−42.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
1.6%
−1.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
3.3%
−3.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
2.9%
−2.9
average fordistricts 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 fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
0.0%
8.6%
−8.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 394 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
0.0%
3.7%
−3.7
average fordistricts 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 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.
Who this district serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Students
391
Economically disadvantaged
59.5%±0.0 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
7.7%−2.7 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
15.7%−2.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.7%+0.1 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
11.1%−3.5 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Munday CISD
African American 2.7%
Hispanic 54.9%
White 35.2%
Asian 0.8%
Two or More Races 6.4%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting for every category shown · 407 in full cohort
African American 5.5%
Hispanic 39.6%
White 49.9%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.9%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.7%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 09: Wichita Falls · 37 reporting for every category shown · 37 in full cohort
African American 2.2%
Hispanic 25.6%
White 66.3%
American Indian 0.6%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Knox County · 3 reporting for every category shown · 3 in full cohort
African American 2%
Hispanic 49.4%
White 44.3%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.3%
Two or More Races 3.9%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 220 reporting for every category shown · 220 in full cohort
African American 3.5%
Hispanic 37.2%
White 55.6%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 0.3%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.9%
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
375
Economically disadvantaged students
223
Emergent bilingual students
29
Special education students
59
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 391 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 30 (7.1%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
391
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−30
Decrease · −7.1%
Change since 2021–22
−14
Decrease · −3.5%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
391
Selected comparison
3,425.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Munday CISD
School year
Students enrolledMunday CISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
405
First available year
3,438.5
2022–23
409
Increase of 4 (1.0%)
3,484.9
2023–24
411
Increase of 2 (0.5%)
3,469.1
2024–25
421
Increase of 10 (2.4%)
3,470.9
2025–26
391
Decrease of 30 (7.1%)
3,425.1
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
23
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
35
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−12
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
23
Selected comparison
168.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 388 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
35
Selected comparison
450.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 383 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−12
Selected comparison
−296
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 368 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Munday CISD
School year
Transfers inMunday CISD
Transfers outMunday CISD
In minus outMunday CISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
23
31
−8
145.9
353.4
−219
2022–23
22
30
−8
159.6
382.8
−235
2023–24
21
24
−3
152.8
407.6
−266
2024–25
27
29
−2
161.5
440.4
−289
2025–26
23
35
−12
168.2
450.5
−296
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Knox City-O'Brien CISD 13890215
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 4 counterpart counts and masked 3.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Benjamin ISD 13890424
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 5 counterpart counts and masked 4.
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
21
4.9% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
39
9.05 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
431
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
4.9%
Selected comparison
10.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 356 rated districts reporting
−6.0 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
9.05
Selected comparison
23.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 369 rated districts reporting
−14.6 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Munday CISD
School year
Cumulative enrollment
Studentsall discipline
Students% of enrollment
Actionsall discipline
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21
408
26
6.4%
81
19.85
8.4%
16.6
2021–22
404
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
2022–23
417
Suppressed
—
17
4.08
—
25.1
2023–24
427
14
3.3%
41
9.60
11.2%
24.9
2024–25
431
21
4.9%
39
9.05
10.9%
23.6
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Munday CISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
21
4.9%
39
9.05
10.9%
23.6
In-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
14
3.25
—
18
Out-of-school suspensions
18
4.2%
25
5.80
3.4%
5.1
DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary DAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
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
1,697
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
348
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
76
21.8%
School-age child poverty rate
21.8%
76 of 348
Boundary population
This district
1,697
Selected comparison
21,341
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
348
Selected comparison
3,832.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
76
Selected comparison
600.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
21.8%
Selected comparison
17.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
+4.1 pts vs similar economic context
Population averages provide neutral scale context and can differ sharply across a region, county or the state. The poverty-rate comparison is the like-for-like percentage; none of these Census measures is treated as school performance.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2024 Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, fetched 24 August 2026. These are modeled estimates for residents inside the geographic district, not the students enrolled by the district. A family's poverty status is context, never a school-quality measure.
2 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
2
Selected comparison
5.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 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
K-12
1
Browse all 2 schoolsName, type, rating, score and enrollment
The selected txschools.net comparison changes with the page-wide control. TEA's own peer group and statewide reference stay visible as separately published, fixed TEA references.
Munday CISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$20,537
Selected comparison
$23,769
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
−$3,232 vs similar economic context
This district spends $5,392 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $1,565 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Munday CISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$27,077
$14,290
$13,054
$14,418
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
2019
$15,951
$14,384
$13,108
$14,572
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
2020
$15,081
$16,581
$14,058
$15,744
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
2021
$16,165
$17,863
$14,797
$16,531
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
2022
$17,771
$19,817
$15,708
$18,241
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
2023
$17,613
$21,827
$16,792
$20,063
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
2024
$26,949
$23,517
$18,125
$22,230
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
2025
$20,537
$25,929
$18,972
$23,769
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 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
$62,779−$1,460 vs similar economic context
Teachers
41−198.3 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
9.2−2.8 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Munday CISD
Beginning 2.5%
1 to 5 years 19.7%
6 to 10 years 7.4%
11 to 20 years 42.3%
21 to 30 years 18.4%
Over 30 years 9.8%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 reporting for every category shown · 407 in full cohort
Beginning 6.7%
1 to 5 years 24%
6 to 10 years 17.4%
11 to 20 years 28.3%
21 to 30 years 17.7%
Over 30 years 6%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 09: Wichita Falls · 37 reporting for every category shown · 37 in full cohort
Beginning 7.3%
1 to 5 years 20.3%
6 to 10 years 15.8%
11 to 20 years 28.7%
21 to 30 years 21%
Over 30 years 6.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Knox County · 3 reporting for every category shown · 3 in full cohort
Beginning 3.5%
1 to 5 years 19.3%
6 to 10 years 19.6%
11 to 20 years 34.4%
21 to 30 years 12%
Over 30 years 10.8%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 220 reporting for every category shown · 220 in full cohort
Beginning 6.5%
1 to 5 years 21.4%
6 to 10 years 16.8%
11 to 20 years 28.9%
21 to 30 years 19.9%
Over 30 years 6.5%
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 12.7% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
12.7%
Selected comparison
21.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 407 rated districts reporting
−8.9 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Munday CISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateMunday CISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
7.8%
16.4%
2021–22
20.4%
20.4%
2022–23
15.4%
24.0%
2023–24
18.8%
21.6%
2024–25
12.7%
21.6%
TEA defines this district rate as the share of teacher full-time equivalents from the prior fall who are not employed as teachers in the district in the current fall. That can include leaving the district or remaining in a different role; it is not a campus-level measure. The comparison average changes with the selected group; this district's reported rate does not.
Out of 160 rankings computed across every published metric and every available comparison group, these are all the measures that meet this site’s distinctive-placement threshold. The list does not change when you change Compare against. Each measure appears once, using its strongest placement. Press Copy for a citable sentence.
#1 rankings
First-place results
1 measure
1of 216
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
Similar size · of the 216 that report this measure · tied with 4
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
2 measures
2of 37
Science — Approaches
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 37 that report this measure · tied with 1
3of 37
Relative Performance
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 37 that report this measure · tied with 1
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
5 measures
4of 37
School Progress
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 37 that report this measure · tied with 1
7of 37
Student Achievement
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 37 that report this measure · tied with 1
9of 37
Reading — Masters
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 37 that report this measure · tied with 1
9of 37
Math — Meets
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 37 that report this measure
10of 37
Math — Masters
Region 09: Wichita Falls · of the 37 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.