+5.0 ptsvs 84 average · 280 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
61 of 280tied with 17 others
Score vs region
+8.6 ptsvs 80.4 average · 77 rated districts in Region 12: Waco
Region 12: Waco placement
12 of 77tied with 5 others
Score vs county
+7.9 ptsvs 81.1 average · 18 rated districts in McLennan County
McLennan County placement
4 of 18tied with 2 others
Score vs similar-size group
+6.3 ptsvs 82.7 average · 266 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
46 of 266tied with 11 others
Score vs state
+7.3 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
166 of 1,019tied with 43 others
B89
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 93 in 2021-22. The current score is above the 84 average for 280 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is above the 80.4 average for 77 rated districts in Region 12: Waco.The current score is above the 81.1 average for 18 rated districts in McLennan County.The current score is above the 82.7 average for 266 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
64%vs 55.1% avg · +8.9 pts
Masters
26%vs 22.9% avg · +3.1 pts
Among 280 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
Riesel ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 89 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 84 average for 280 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 61st of 280 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 17 others).
Riesel ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 89 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 80.4 average for 77 rated districts in Region 12: Waco. It is down 1 point since 2021-22.
Riesel ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 89 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.1 average for 18 rated districts in McLennan County. It is down 1 point since 2021-22.
Riesel ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 89 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 82.7 average for 266 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 1 point since 2021-22.
Ranks 46th of 266 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 11 others).
Riesel ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 89 out of 100 for 2025-26 — above the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 1 point 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 93 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+5.3 vs similar economic context · 280 reporting
School Progress86 B+4.5 vs similar economic context · 280 reporting
Closing the Gaps88 B+6.1 vs similar economic context · 280 reporting
Academic Growth70 C−4.8 vs similar economic context · 280 reporting
Relative Performance86 B+5.3 vs similar economic context · 280 reporting
Riesel ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (280 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
90
A
—
School Progress
86
B
4
Closing the Gaps
88
B
2
Academic Growth
70
C
10
Relative Performance
86
B
4
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 2 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 (90), so
School Progress (86) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 90.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level85%+5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Meets grade level64%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Masters grade level26%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level85%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Meets grade level67%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Masters grade level25%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level83%+7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Meets grade level57%+9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Masters grade level22%+3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level91%+8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 279 reporting
Meets grade level76%+18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 279 reporting
Masters grade level42%+14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 279 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level78%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 273 reporting
Meets grade level57%+4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 273 reporting
Masters grade level21%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 273 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (280 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
98.1%+1.6 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 269 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+3.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
97.9%+1.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 267 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.3 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 269 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
92.0%+2.5 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
92.0%
89.5%
+2.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
80.8%
58.0%
+22.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
44.2%
32.1%
+12.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
0.0%
8.7%
−8.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
38.5%
38.1%
+0.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
3.8%
41.7%
−37.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
1.4%
−1.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
1.9%
2.2%
−0.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
4.5%
−4.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
1.9%
2.9%
−1.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
15.4%
7.7%
+7.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
0.0%
3.3%
−3.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 268 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
38
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
20
52.6% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
18
47.4% of graduates
Not trackable
0
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
38
Selected comparison
492
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
20
Selected comparison
218.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
52.6%
Selected comparison
48.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 rated districts reporting
+3.7 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
47.4%
Selected comparison
47.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 rated districts reporting
−0.2 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
3.5%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 213 rated districts reporting
−3.5 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
MCLENNAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE (003590)8
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
683
Economically disadvantaged
43.0%−1.7 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
2.8%−5.1 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
16.1%−1.6 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
95.9%+0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
10.0%−1.8 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Riesel ISD
African American 2%
Hispanic 26.1%
White 67.3%
Asian 0.3%
Two or More Races 4.2%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting for every category shown · 280 in full cohort
African American 4.4%
Hispanic 31.9%
White 58.2%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 1.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 12: Waco · 77 reporting for every category shown · 77 in full cohort
African American 7%
Hispanic 35%
White 53%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.1%
Selected comparison averageFor McLennan County · 18 reporting for every category shown · 18 in full cohort
African American 8.9%
Hispanic 32.3%
White 53.2%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 266 reporting for every category shown · 266 in full cohort
African American 4.5%
Hispanic 38.8%
White 52.5%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.5%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.3%
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
683
Economically disadvantaged students
294
Emergent bilingual students
19
Special education students
110
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 683 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 6 (0.9%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
683
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−6
Decrease · −0.9%
Change since 2021–22
+60
Increase · +9.6%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
683
Selected comparison
5,169.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Riesel ISD
School year
Students enrolledRiesel ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
623
First available year
5,038.8
2022–23
656
Increase of 33 (5.3%)
5,137.6
2023–24
652
Decrease of 4 (0.6%)
5,170.7
2024–25
689
Increase of 37 (5.7%)
5,201.9
2025–26
683
Decrease of 6 (0.9%)
5,169.4
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
250
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
32
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
+218
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
250
Selected comparison
281.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 272 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
32
Selected comparison
566.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 261 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
+218
Selected comparison
−287
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 256 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Riesel ISD
School year
Transfers inRiesel ISD
Transfers outRiesel ISD
In minus outRiesel ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
182
56
+126
230.9
434.2
−212
2022–23
189
49
+140
232.9
475.7
−249
2023–24
211
52
+159
243.2
479.6
−243
2024–25
218
51
+167
262.8
547.2
−288
2025–26
250
32
+218
281.1
566.4
−287
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Marlin ISD 073903106
Hallsburg ISD 16192469
Mart ISD 16190832
Waco ISD 16191410
Top reported flows only. TEA published 4 of 15 counterpart counts and masked 11.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Mart ISD 16190811
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 11 counterpart counts and masked 10.
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
70
9.7% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
134
18.53 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
723
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
9.7%
Selected comparison
9.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 245 rated districts reporting
+0.5 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
18.53
Selected comparison
19.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 252 rated districts reporting
−0.9 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Riesel 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
689
80
11.6%
208
30.19
7.5%
14.5
2021–22
671
114
17.0%
272
40.54
9.4%
20
2022–23
708
73
10.3%
118
16.67
10.0%
21
2023–24
691
84
12.2%
142
20.55
9.8%
21.3
2024–25
723
70
9.7%
134
18.53
9.2%
19.4
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Riesel ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
70
9.7%
134
18.53
9.2%
19.4
In-school suspensions
51
7.0%
74
10.24
8.2%
14.7
Out-of-school suspensions
24
3.3%
31
4.29
2.8%
4
DAEP placements
23
3.2%
28
3.87
2.1%
2.6
Mandatory DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
Discretionary DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary JJAEP placements
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Mandatory expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Discretionary expulsions
Not reported
—
Not reported
—
—
—
Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized districts can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this district's own counts and rates remain fixed.
Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.
Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.
Community around the district
A district serves a place as well as a roster. These Census estimates describe the resident community without treating its circumstances as an explanation or a verdict on students.
People living inside the district boundary
2,349
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
453
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
55
12.1%
School-age child poverty rate
12.1%
55 of 453
Boundary population
This district
2,349
Selected comparison
32,283.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
453
Selected comparison
5,691.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
55
Selected comparison
612.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
12.1%
Selected comparison
13.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
−1.3 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
7.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 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
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.
Riesel ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$15,753
Selected comparison
$23,074
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
−$7,321 vs similar economic context
This district spends $5,722 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $3,219 less per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Riesel ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$14,455
$13,378
$13,054
$13,747
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
2019
$11,558
$14,225
$13,108
$14,294
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
2020
$12,224
$15,250
$14,058
$15,397
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
2021
$13,048
$15,636
$14,797
$16,254
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
2022
$13,928
$16,982
$15,708
$17,599
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
2023
$14,824
$18,148
$16,792
$19,230
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
2024
$19,529
$19,654
$18,125
$21,508
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
2025
$15,753
$21,475
$18,972
$23,074
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 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
$61,670−$3,481 vs similar economic context
Teachers
57−298.1 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
12−0.7 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Riesel ISD
Beginning 1.8%
1 to 5 years 18.3%
6 to 10 years 26.2%
11 to 20 years 44%
21 to 30 years 3.5%
Over 30 years 6.2%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 reporting for every category shown · 280 in full cohort
Beginning 5.4%
1 to 5 years 21.9%
6 to 10 years 17.9%
11 to 20 years 30.9%
21 to 30 years 18.8%
Over 30 years 5.3%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 12: Waco · 77 reporting for every category shown · 77 in full cohort
Beginning 7.3%
1 to 5 years 23.1%
6 to 10 years 17%
11 to 20 years 28.5%
21 to 30 years 18.6%
Over 30 years 5.4%
Selected comparison averageFor McLennan County · 18 reporting for every category shown · 18 in full cohort
Beginning 5.1%
1 to 5 years 23.2%
6 to 10 years 18.8%
11 to 20 years 28.4%
21 to 30 years 19.3%
Over 30 years 5.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 266 reporting for every category shown · 266 in full cohort
Beginning 5.9%
1 to 5 years 21.5%
6 to 10 years 17.6%
11 to 20 years 29%
21 to 30 years 19.4%
Over 30 years 6.2%
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 17.6% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
17.6%
Selected comparison
18.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 280 rated districts reporting
−1.0 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Riesel ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateRiesel ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
28.8%
14.6%
2021–22
21.8%
17.9%
2022–23
20.1%
20.1%
2023–24
9.8%
19.4%
2024–25
17.6%
18.6%
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 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
2 measures
1of 18
Science — Approaches
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 1
1of 18
Science — Meets
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
2 measures
2of 18
Closing the Gaps
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 1
3of 17
Earned an associate degree
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
22 measures
4of 18
Overall score
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 2 · full ranking
4of 18
All Subjects — Meets
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 1
4of 18
Math — Approaches
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 2
4of 18
Science — Masters
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
4of 17
Social Studies — Meets
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure · tied with 2
5of 18
Student Achievement
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
5of 18
All Subjects — Approaches
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 1
5of 18
Attendance
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
5of 17
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure
5of 17
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure
5of 17
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure
6of 18
Reading — Meets
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 1
6of 18
Math — Meets
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
6of 18
Math — Masters
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure · tied with 1
6of 17
Social Studies — Approaches
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure
6of 17
Social Studies — Masters
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure · tied with 1
7of 18
All Subjects — Masters
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
7of 18
Reading — Masters
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
8of 17
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure
9of 18
Reading — Approaches
McLennan County · of the 18 that report this measure
9of 17
College, career or military ready
McLennan County · of the 17 that report this measure
10of 18
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
McLennan County · of the 18 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.