Red Lick ISD

5 years of ratings

Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.

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.

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+0.8 vs similar economic context · 34 reporting
• School Progress82 B+1.4 vs similar economic context · 34 reporting
• Closing the Gaps86 B−2.5 vs similar economic context · 32 reporting
• Academic Growth82 B+2.8 vs similar economic context · 33 reporting
• Relative Performance74 C−2.1 vs similar economic context · 34 reporting

• Red Lick ISD
• Similar economic-disadvantage rate (34 in cohort)

Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 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 (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

• Approaches grade level
• Meets grade level
• Masters grade level
• Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (34 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.

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

516

Economically disadvantaged

7.8%−2.6 pts vs similar economic context

English learners

0.4%−4.4 pts vs similar economic context

Special education

12.6%−0.9 pts vs similar economic context

Attendance

96.2%+0.3 pts vs similar economic context

Chronically absent

4.2%−3.1 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Red Lick ISD

• African American 1.9%
• Hispanic 5.8%
• White 86.8%
• American Indian 0.8%
• Two or More Races 4.7%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary

515

Economically disadvantaged students

40

Emergent bilingual students

2

Special education students

65

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 516 students in 2025–26, an increase of 12 (2.4%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment

516

2025–26

Change from 2024–25

+12

Increase · +2.4%

Change since 2021–22

+15

Increase · +3.0%

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

297

Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26

Transfers out

283

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

Transfers in minus transfers out

+14

Arithmetic context only

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

18

3.5% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions

22

4.22 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment

521

2024–25

Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized districts can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this district's own counts and rates remain fixed.

Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.

Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.

Community around the district

A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.

People living inside the district boundary

2,899

2024 Census estimate

Children ages 5–17

593

Living inside the boundary

Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty

33

5.6%

School-age child poverty rate

5.6%

33 of 593

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

The selected comparison is a neutral average district size. This district's school count and school-type mix remain its own facts.

Elementary

1

Middle / Jr. High

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.

• Red Lick ISD
• TEA peer group
• Texas average
• Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

This district spends $6,619 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $4,116 less per student than the state average.

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

$63,299−$4,544 vs similar economic context

Teachers

44−386.2 vs similar economic context

Students per staff member

11.7−0.9 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Red Lick ISD

• 1 to 5 years 6.8%
• 6 to 10 years 20.5%
• 11 to 20 years 40.9%
• 21 to 30 years 27.3%
• Over 30 years 4.5%

Teacher turnover over time

TEA reported a 11.4% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.

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 120 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.

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