Independent Texas school research. TEA data, clearly explained. Not affiliated with the state agencyTEA.

txschools.netSchool data with context

Geographic public school district

Prosper ISD

Collin County · Region 10: Richardson · 33,651 students

Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility

Current score
91/1002025-26
Change
+2 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
+0.3 ptsvs 90.7 average · 26 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
15 of 26tied with 3 others
A91

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 94 in 2021-22. The current score is level with the 90.7 average for 26 rated districts serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Top placement

Earned an associate degree

1% 2nd of 22 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure · 2025-26

See the full measure

Current strength

Academic Growth above the similar-context average

82 +2.9 pts vs 79.1

  • 82 is 2.9 points above the 79.1 average among 25 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full 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

Prosper ISD is rated A by TEA, scoring 91 out of 100 for 2025-26 — level with the 90.7 average for 26 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 15th of 26 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 3 others).

Put the numbers in context

Compare with

Jump to a section
  1. Overview
  2. Official improvement and transfer notices
  3. 5 years of ratings
  4. Where the score comes from
  5. Student outcomes
  6. After high school: the following fall
  7. Who this district serves
  8. Student counts behind the percentages
  9. Enrollment over time
  10. Students crossing district lines
  11. Discipline and removal from class
  12. Community around the district
  13. 32 schools in this district
  14. Spending per student
  15. Teachers
  16. Where this district ranks best
  17. Where this comes from

Official improvement and transfer notices

Dated TEA notices for campuses in this district. They are shown separately from the district rating because they describe specific campuses, support programs and transfer eligibility.

Campuses identified for federal improvement support
1

2026 TEA list

Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0

2026–27 school year

Share of campuses identified for improvement

This district
3.1%
Selected comparison
0.8%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 rated districts reporting

+2.3 pts vs similar economic context

Share of campuses on the PEG list

This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
0.0%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 rated districts reporting

±0.0 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Prosper ISD
CampusNoticeOfficial status or reason
Jim and Betty Hughes ElemATSAdditional Targeted Support · Economically Disadvantaged

Selected comparison percentages describe how common each dated campus notice is across reporting districts in that group. They are neutral prevalence context; changing the comparison never changes a campus's official status.

Sources: TEA's 2026 Schools Identified for Improvement and Public Education Grant program, fetched 24 August 2026. A PEG listing makes a student assigned to that campus eligible to request a transfer; it does not guarantee acceptance, available space or transportation.

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
908070 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageProsper ISD 8990899191 2021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26

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 94 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
Rating history with comparisons
YearRatingScoreSelected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rateStateTexas average
2025-26A9190.7 26 reporting81.7 1,019 reporting
2024-25A9190.7 26 reporting80.3 1,019 reporting
2023-24B8989.1 25 reporting78.7 1,017 reporting
2022-23A9089.6 26 reporting79.2 1,018 reporting
2021-22B8991.0 26 reporting80.6 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.

  • Student Achievement92 A+0.5 vs similar economic context · 26 reporting
  • School Progress82 B+1.5 vs similar economic context · 26 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps90 A+0.2 vs similar economic context · 24 reporting
  • Academic Growth82 B+2.9 vs similar economic context · 25 reporting
  • Relative Performance71 C−5.6 vs similar economic context · 26 reporting
  • Prosper ISD
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (26 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement92A—
School Progress82B8
Closing the Gaps90A—
Academic Growth82B8
Relative Performance71C9

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 (92), so School Progress (82) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 92.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level90%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
  • Meets grade level73%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
  • Masters grade level40%±0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level92%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
  • Meets grade level79%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
  • Masters grade level42%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level88%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
  • Meets grade level67%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
  • Masters grade level36%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level90%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 24 reporting
  • Meets grade level73%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 24 reporting
  • Masters grade level45%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 24 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level88%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 23 reporting
  • Meets grade level69%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 23 reporting
  • Masters grade level41%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 23 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (26 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
99.3%+1.2 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
99.4%+4.5 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
99.4%+4.3 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.2%+0.1 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 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
88.0%−1.9 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
CriterionThis district% of graduatesAveragesimilar economic contextDifferencepercentage pointsReportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria88.0%89.9%−1.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course66.0%66.5%−0.5 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA57.2%58.4%−1.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)45.3%34.6%+10.7 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course36.8%44.1%−7.3 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification32.7%25.2%+7.5 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate0.2%0.2%+0.0 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree1.0%0.1%+0.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit0.1%8.3%−8.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness1.9%1.9%+0.0 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student6.2%5.1%+1.1 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces1.9%1.3%+0.6 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 22 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
1,569

Class of 2023–24

Enrolled in Texas public higher education
664

42.3% of graduates

Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
737

47.0% of graduates

Not trackable
168

Fall 2024

Graduates in the report

This district
1,569
Selected comparison
742.9

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 18 rated districts reporting

Enrolled in Texas public higher education

This district
664
Selected comparison
319.7

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 18 rated districts reporting

Texas-public enrollment rate

This district
42.3%
Selected comparison
48.4%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 18 rated districts reporting

−6.1 pts vs similar economic context

Not-found rate

This district
47.0%
Selected comparison
45.5%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 18 rated districts reporting

+1.5 pts vs similar economic context

Not-trackable rate

This district
10.7%
Selected comparison
6.1%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 18 rated districts reporting

+4.6 pts vs similar economic context

Most common named Texas public destinations

  1. COLLIN CO COMM COLL DISTRICT (023614)205
  2. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS (003594)73
  3. U. OF TEXAS AT DALLAS (009741)60

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
33,651
Economically disadvantaged
6.1%−2.2 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
13.6%+9.4 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
14.2%+1.6 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.5%−0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
8.6%+1.2 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Prosper ISD

African American: 9.3%Hispanic: 11.1%White: 34.7%American Indian: 1%Asian: 37.8%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 6.1%
  • African American 9.3%
  • Hispanic 11.1%
  • White 34.7%
  • American Indian 1%
  • Asian 37.8%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 6.1%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting for every category shown · 26 in full cohort

African American: 2.6%Hispanic: 17.7%White: 64%American Indian: 0.4%Asian: 9.9%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 5.3%
  • African American 2.6%
  • Hispanic 17.7%
  • White 64%
  • American Indian 0.4%
  • Asian 9.9%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 5.3%

Student counts behind the percentages

Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.

Students in this TEA accountability summary
33,583
Economically disadvantaged students
2,045
Emergent bilingual students
4,569
Special education students
4,767

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 33,651 students in 2025–26, an increase of 2,000 (6.3%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
33,651

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
+2,000

Increase · +6.3%

Change since 2021–22
+11,871

Increase · +54.5%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This district
33,651
Selected comparison
7,096.6

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 rated districts reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Prosper ISD
School yearStudents enrolledProsper ISDChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 21,780 First available year 6,949.5
2022–23 24,983 Increase of 3,203 (14.7%) 7,179.8
2023–24 28,467 Increase of 3,484 (13.9%) 7,333
2024–25 31,651 Increase of 3,184 (11.2%) 7,411.6
2025–26 33,651 Increase of 2,000 (6.3%) 7,096.6

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
691

Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26

Transfers out
1,267

Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26

Transfers in minus transfers out
−576

Arithmetic context only

Transfers in · 2025–26

This district
691
Selected comparison
355.6

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 24 rated districts reporting

Transfers out · 2025–26

This district
1,267
Selected comparison
408.8

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 21 rated districts reporting

Transfers in minus out · 2025–26

This district
−576
Selected comparison
−53

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 20 rated districts reporting

Official transfer totals by school year for Prosper ISD
School yearTransfers inProsper ISDTransfers outProsper ISDIn minus outProsper ISDTransfers inselected comparison averageTransfers outselected comparison averageIn minus outselected comparison average
2021–22 371 822 −451 304.1 329.7 −18
2022–23 460 890 −430 293 339.9 −29
2023–24 491 958 −467 291.4 377.4 −53
2024–25 605 1,084 −479 325.4 378.5 −38
2025–26 691 1,267 −576 355.6 408.8 −53

Largest reported origins for transfers in

  1. Denton ISD 061901163
  2. Celina ISD 043903140
  3. McKinney ISD 04390781
  4. Frisco ISD 04390574
  5. Little Elm ISD 06191444

Top reported flows only. TEA published 12 of 32 counterpart counts and masked 20.

Largest reported destinations for transfers out

  1. Texas College Preparatory Academies 221801461
  2. Imagine International Academy of North Texas 043801196
  3. Frisco ISD 043905136
  4. Leadership Prep School 061804102
  5. Basis Texas 01583475

Top reported flows only. TEA published 12 of 43 counterpart counts and masked 31.

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
1,235

3.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
2,585

7.78 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
33,205

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This district
3.7%
Selected comparison
3.6%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 19 rated districts reporting

+0.1 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This district
7.78
Selected comparison
6.2

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 20 rated districts reporting

+1.6 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Prosper ISD
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 20,278 490 2.4% 759 3.74 2.3% 3.6
2021–22 23,398 911 3.9% 1,550 6.62 3.5% 5.8
2022–23 26,449 977 3.7% 1,706 6.45 3.8% 6
2023–24 30,134 1,161 3.9% 2,459 8.16 3.7% 6.2
2024–25 33,205 1,235 3.7% 2,585 7.78 3.6% 6.2
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Prosper ISD in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 1,235 3.7% 2,585 7.78 3.6% 6.2
In-school suspensions 1,084 3.3% 1,891 5.69 3.1% 4.3
Out-of-school suspensions 392 1.2% 539 1.62 0.9% 1.2
DAEP placements 135 0.4% 147 0.44 0.7% 0.8
Mandatory DAEP placements 93 0.3% 99 0.30 0.5% 0.6
Discretionary DAEP placements 44 0.1% 48 0.14 0.3% 0.3
JJAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Mandatory JJAEP placements Not reported — Not reported — — —
Discretionary JJAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
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
88,381

2024 Census estimate

Children ages 5–17
20,968

Living inside the boundary

Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
517

2.5%

School-age child poverty rate
2.5%

517 of 20,968

Boundary population

This district
88,381
Selected comparison
33,159.9

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting

School-age population

This district
20,968
Selected comparison
7,100.6

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting

School-age population in poverty

This district
517
Selected comparison
235.4

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting

School-age child poverty rate

This district
2.5%
Selected comparison
6.2%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting

−3.7 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.

32 schools in this district

Number of schools in the district

This district
32
Selected comparison
9

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 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
21
Middle / Jr. High
6
High School
5
Browse all 32 schoolsName, type, rating, score and enrollment
Schools in this district
SchoolTypeRatingScoreStudents
Lorene Rogers MSMiddle / Jr. HighA941,591
Jim Spradley ElemElementaryA94753
Walnut Grove HSHigh SchoolA932,517
Daniel L Jones MSMiddle / Jr. HighA931,472
Ralph and Mary Lynn Boyer ElemElementaryA93839
Lilyana ElemElementaryA93865
Prosper HSHigh SchoolA922,603
Rock Hill HSHigh SchoolA922,534
Reynolds MSMiddle / Jr. HighA921,464
Bill Hays MSMiddle / Jr. HighA921,145
Moseley MSMiddle / Jr. HighA921,391
Cynthia A Cockrell ElemElementaryA92753
Jana L Thomson ElemElementaryA92627
William Rushing MSMiddle / Jr. HighA911,094
R Steve Folsom ElemElementaryA91875
Mike and Janie Reeves ElemElementaryA91819
Mrs Jerry Bryant ElemElementaryA91972
Brenda Calhoun Early Childhood SchoolElementaryA91742
Richland HSHigh SchoolA901,794
Chuck and Cindy Stuber ElemElementaryA90947
Joyce Hall ElemElementaryA90744
Light Farms ElemElementaryB881,043
Dan Christie ElemElementaryB88867
Betty Jackson ElemElementaryB88549
John A Baker ElemElementaryB87547
Jack and June Furr ElemElementaryB87734
Jim and Betty Hughes ElemElementaryB86755
Sam Johnson ElemElementaryB86823
Windsong Ranch ElemElementaryB84744
Virgie Witt Smothermon ElemElementaryB84738
Judy Rucker ElemElementaryC78294
Collin Co JJAEPHigh SchoolNot Rated—1

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.

$12k$24k$37k20182020202220242025
  • Prosper ISD
  • TEA peer group
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This district
$33,711
Selected comparison
$35,259

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting

−$1,548 vs similar economic context

This district spends $15,328 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $14,739 more per student than the state average.

View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
YearProsper ISDTEA peer groupTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$23,195$13,287$13,054$19,489 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting
2019$31,223$13,321$13,108$19,584 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting
2020$24,512$14,168$14,058$25,610 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting
2021$18,211$14,814$14,797$29,822 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting
2022$21,392$15,701$15,708$25,456 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting
2023$30,540$17,110$16,792$32,178 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting
2024$30,145$17,513$18,125$33,333 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting
2025$33,711$18,383$18,972$35,259 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 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
$69,741+$1,274 vs similar economic context
Teachers
2,447+1944.8 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
13.7+1.2 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Prosper ISD

Beginning: 4.7%1 to 5 years: 29.4%6 to 10 years: 20.1%11 to 20 years: 31.6%21 to 30 years: 13%Over 30 years: 1.2%
  • Beginning 4.7%
  • 1 to 5 years 29.4%
  • 6 to 10 years 20.1%
  • 11 to 20 years 31.6%
  • 21 to 30 years 13%
  • Over 30 years 1.2%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 26 reporting for every category shown · 26 in full cohort

Beginning: 4.1%1 to 5 years: 21.3%6 to 10 years: 19%11 to 20 years: 32.2%21 to 30 years: 16.1%Over 30 years: 3.6%
  • Beginning 4.1%
  • 1 to 5 years 21.3%
  • 6 to 10 years 19%
  • 11 to 20 years 32.2%
  • 21 to 30 years 16.1%
  • Over 30 years 3.6%

Teacher turnover over time

TEA reported a 13.7% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.

Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25

This district
13.7%
Selected comparison
17.6%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 25 rated districts reporting

−3.9 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Prosper ISD
School yearTeacher turnover rateProsper ISDAverage turnover rateselected comparison
2020–2111.3%14.6%
2021–2214.5%16.4%
2022–2321.0%18.7%
2023–2417.9%20.8%
2024–2513.7%17.6%

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.

Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, fetched 24 August 2026.

Where this district ranks best

Out of 200 rankings computed across every published metric and every available comparison group, these are all the measures that meet this site’s distinctive-placement threshold. The list does not change when you change Compare against. Each measure appears once, using its strongest placement. Press Copy for a citable sentence.

#1 rankings

First-place results

8 measures

  • 1of 54

    Closing the Gaps

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 1of 54

    All Subjects — Approaches

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 1of 54

    Reading — Approaches

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 1of 54

    Reading — Meets

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 1of 54

    Social Studies — Approaches

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 1of 54

    Social Studies — Meets

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 2

  • 1of 54

    Four-Year Graduation Rate

    Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 1of 54

    Per-student spending

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

#2–3 rankings

Second- and third-place results

14 measures

  • 2of 54

    Overall score

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 2of 54

    Student Achievement

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 2of 54

    All Subjects — Meets

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 2of 54

    Reading — Masters

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 2of 54

    Math — Approaches

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 2of 54

    Math — Meets

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 2of 54

    Science — Approaches

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 2of 54

    Science — Meets

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 2of 54

    Five-Year Graduation Rate

    Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 2of 22

    Earned an associate degree

    Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 22 that report this measure

  • 3of 54

    Math — Masters

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 3of 54

    Six-Year Graduation Rate

    Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 3of 54

    Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 3of 54

    Chronically absent (lowest is best)

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

16 measures

  • 4of 54

    All Subjects — Masters

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 4of 54

    Science — Masters

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 4of 54

    Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 4of 22

    Earned a level I or level II certificate

    Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 22 that report this measure

  • 4of 22

    Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces

    Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 22 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 4of 14

    Academic Growth

    Collin County · of the 14 that report this measure

  • 4of 14

    Attendance

    Collin County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 2

  • 5of 22

    Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student

    Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 22 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 5of 14

    School Progress

    Collin County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 2

  • 5of 14

    Earned college credit for a dual credit course

    Collin County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 6of 54

    Social Studies — Masters

    Similar size · of the 54 that report this measure

  • 6of 22

    Earned an industry-based certification

    Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 22 that report this measure

  • 7of 54

    Dropout Rate (lowest is best)

    Similar size (standard accountability only) · of the 54 that report this measure · tied with 2

  • 8of 22

    Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness

    Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 22 that report this measure

  • 8of 14

    College, career or military ready

    Collin County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 1

  • 9of 22

    Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit

    Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 22 that report this measure · tied with 1

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.

Download this district as CSV · JSON · the whole dataset