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

txschools.netSchool data with context

Geographic public school district

Spring ISD

Harris County · Region 04: Houston · 32,349 students

Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility

Current score
76/1002025-26
Change
+2 ptssince 2021-22
Score vs similar economic context
−1.7 ptsvs 77.7 average · 217 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
128 of 217tied with 13 others
C76

At a glance

Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving up; under the rules in force back then it scored 81 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 77.7 average for 217 rated districts serving a similar economic context.

Evidence worth noticing

Strengths and momentum

Recent domain gain

Closing the Gaps rose 14 points

63 to 77 2024-25 to 2025-26

  • 77 is 2.3 points above the 74.7 average among 217 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measure

STAAR result

Math above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters

Meets
35%vs 33.8% avg · +1.2 pts
Masters
13%vs 11.5% avg · +1.5 pts

Among 217 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

Spring ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 76 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 77.7 average for 217 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is up 2 points since 2021-22.

Ranks 128th of 217 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 13 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. 41 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
19

2026 TEA list

Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
11

2026–27 school year

Share of campuses identified for improvement

This district
46.3%
Selected comparison
30.7%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting

+15.6 pts vs similar economic context

Share of campuses on the PEG list

This district
26.8%
Selected comparison
8.7%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting

+18.1 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Spring ISD
CampusNoticeOfficial status or reason
Spring HSPEG transfer listFinal 2026-27 PEG list
Westfield HSATS + PEG transfer listAdditional Targeted Support · Special Education
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Andy Dekaney HSTSI + PEG transfer listTargeted Support and Improvement · Hispanic
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Edwin M Wells MSTSITargeted Support and Improvement · Asian
Dueitt MSTSITargeted Support and Improvement · African American, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, English Learners, Continuously Enrolled
Twin Creeks MSTSITargeted Support and Improvement · African American, Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, Former Special Education, Continuously Enrolled
Bammel MSCSI + PEG transfer listComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Stelle Claughton MSCSIComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Rickey C Bailey MSCSI + PEG transfer listComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Bammel ElemTSI + PEG transfer listTargeted Support and Improvement · African American
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Ponderosa ElemCSI + PEG transfer listComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Pat Reynolds ElemCSIComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Smith ElemCSI + PEG transfer listComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Deloras E Thompson ElemTSITargeted Support and Improvement · Hispanic, English Learners, Continuously Enrolled
Heritage ElemPEG transfer listFinal 2026-27 PEG list
Salyers ElemATS + PEG transfer listAdditional Targeted Support · Special Education
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Chet Burchett ElemTSITargeted Support and Improvement · Special Education, Continuously Enrolled
Carolee Booker ElemCSI + PEG transfer listComprehensive Support and Improvement · CSI Low Performance
Final 2026-27 PEG list
Hoyland ElemTSITargeted Support and Improvement · Hispanic, English Learners, Continuously Enrolled
Ralph Eickenroht ElemTSITargeted Support and Improvement · Continuously Enrolled
Helen Major ElemATSAdditional Targeted Support · Continuously Enrolled

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
90807060 Similar economic-disadvantage rateTexas averageSpring ISD 7469676576 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 B with 81 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
2025-26C7677.7 217 reporting81.7 1,019 reporting
2024-25D6575.2 217 reporting80.3 1,019 reporting
2023-24D6773.6 217 reporting78.7 1,017 reporting
2022-23D6974.1 216 reporting79.2 1,018 reporting
2021-22C7476.9 216 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 Achievement69 D−5.7 vs similar economic context · 217 reporting
  • School Progress75 C−3.8 vs similar economic context · 217 reporting
  • Closing the Gaps77 C+2.3 vs similar economic context · 217 reporting
  • Academic Growth72 C+2.6 vs similar economic context · 217 reporting
  • Relative Performance75 C−3.5 vs similar economic context · 217 reporting
  • Spring ISD
  • Similar economic-disadvantage rate (217 in cohort)
Domain scores
DomainScoreGradePoints to next grade
Student Achievement69D1
School Progress75C5
Closing the Gaps77C3
Academic Growth72C8
Relative Performance75C5

Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 3 points below B 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 (75), so Student Achievement (69) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 75.

Student outcomes

STAAR performance

All Subjects

  • Approaches grade level66%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
  • Meets grade level39%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
  • Masters grade level14%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level66%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
  • Meets grade level42%−2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
  • Masters grade level14%−0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
Math3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level64%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
  • Meets grade level35%+1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
  • Masters grade level13%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting
Science3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level69%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Meets grade level39%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
  • Masters grade level16%+0 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
  • Approaches grade level68%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 214 reporting
  • Meets grade level36%−3 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 214 reporting
  • Masters grade level14%−1 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 214 reporting
  • Approaches grade level
  • Meets grade level
  • Masters grade level
  • Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (217 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
84.3%−10.6 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
86.4%−8.9 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
86.1%−8.9 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
2.3%+1.4 pts vs similar economic context average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 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
80.0%−5.9 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
CriterionThis district% of graduatesAveragesimilar economic contextDifferencepercentage pointsReportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria80.0%85.9%−5.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course55.6%52.6%+3.0 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA14.3%21.2%−6.9 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)13.7%6.6%+7.1 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course20.1%30.6%−10.5 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification34.4%42.6%−8.2 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate1.1%2.9%−1.8 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree3.7%4.7%−1.0 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit0.0%3.1%−3.1 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness0.8%3.6%−2.8 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student5.4%10.0%−4.6 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces3.0%3.1%−0.1 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 212 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
2,035

Class of 2023–24

Enrolled in Texas public higher education
620

30.5% of graduates

Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
1,245

61.2% of graduates

Not trackable
170

Fall 2024

Graduates in the report

This district
2,035
Selected comparison
661.9

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

Enrolled in Texas public higher education

This district
620
Selected comparison
278.2

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

Texas-public enrollment rate

This district
30.5%
Selected comparison
42.2%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

−11.7 pts vs similar economic context

Not-found rate

This district
61.2%
Selected comparison
53.5%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

+7.7 pts vs similar economic context

Not-trackable rate

This district
8.4%
Selected comparison
4.4%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 171 rated districts reporting

+4.0 pts vs similar economic context

Most common named Texas public destinations

  1. LONE STAR COLLEGE - N. HARRIS (000722)168
  2. UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON (003652)59
  3. SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY (003606)51

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
32,349
Economically disadvantaged
82.8%+1.6 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
33.1%+11.9 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
13.6%−4.5 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
91.8%−1.5 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
30.6%+9.4 pts vs similar economic context

Student demographics

Spring ISD

African American: 36.5%Hispanic: 54.1%White: 3.8%American Indian: 0.8%Asian: 1.7%Pacific Islander: 0.3%Two or More Races: 2.7%
  • African American 36.5%
  • Hispanic 54.1%
  • White 3.8%
  • American Indian 0.8%
  • Asian 1.7%
  • Pacific Islander 0.3%
  • Two or More Races 2.7%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting for every category shown · 217 in full cohort

African American: 11.5%Hispanic: 65.5%White: 19.4%American Indian: 0.2%Asian: 0.8%Pacific Islander: 0.1%Two or More Races: 2.6%
  • African American 11.5%
  • Hispanic 65.5%
  • White 19.4%
  • American Indian 0.2%
  • Asian 0.8%
  • Pacific Islander 0.1%
  • Two or More Races 2.6%

Student counts behind the percentages

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

Students in this TEA accountability summary
32,328
Economically disadvantaged students
26,782
Emergent bilingual students
10,704
Special education students
4,410

Early college pathways

Early College High School
406

TEA-published share: 1.3%

Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH)
266

TEA-published share: 0.8%

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 32,349 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 1,241 (3.7%) from 2024–25.

Latest enrollment
32,349

2025–26

Change from 2024–25
−1,241

Decrease · −3.7%

Change since 2021–22
−1,076

Decrease · −3.2%

Enrollment in 2025–26

This district
32,349
Selected comparison
7,226.8

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting

Student enrollment by school year for Spring ISD
School yearStudents enrolledSpring ISDChange from previous school yearAverage enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22 33,425 First available year 7,659.7
2022–23 34,114 Increase of 689 (2.1%) 7,663.5
2023–24 33,935 Decrease of 179 (0.5%) 7,558.7
2024–25 33,590 Decrease of 345 (1.0%) 7,468.6
2025–26 32,349 Decrease of 1,241 (3.7%) 7,226.8

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
106

Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26

Transfers out
6,502

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

Transfers in minus transfers out
−6,396

Arithmetic context only

Transfers in · 2025–26

This district
106
Selected comparison
441

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 190 rated districts reporting

Transfers out · 2025–26

This district
6,502
Selected comparison
1,587.1

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 211 rated districts reporting

Transfers in minus out · 2025–26

This district
−6,396
Selected comparison
−1,348

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 186 rated districts reporting

Official transfer totals by school year for Spring ISD
School yearTransfers inSpring ISDTransfers outSpring ISDIn minus outSpring ISDTransfers inselected comparison averageTransfers outselected comparison averageIn minus outselected comparison average
2021–22 150 4,636 −4,486 296.2 1,373.7 −1,222
2022–23 141 5,055 −4,914 341.5 1,444.5 −1,271
2023–24 164 4,739 −4,575 368.3 1,528.2 −1,314
2024–25 122 5,837 −5,715 408.1 1,567.6 −1,332
2025–26 106 6,502 −6,396 441 1,587.1 −1,348

Largest reported origins for transfers in

  1. Aldine ISD 10190227
  2. Klein ISD 10191526
  3. Humble ISD 10191313
  4. Conroe ISD 17090212
  5. Cypress-Fairbanks ISD 10190710

Top reported flows only. TEA published 5 of 11 counterpart counts and masked 6.

Largest reported destinations for transfers out

  1. School of Science and Technology 0158271,579
  2. IDEA Public Schools 108807916
  3. Harmony Public Schools - Houston North 101858638
  4. Klein ISD 101915467
  5. Aldine ISD 101902332

Top reported flows only. TEA published 31 of 65 counterpart counts and masked 34.

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
4,298

11.4% of cumulative year-end enrollment

Disciplinary actions
9,708

25.66 per 100 students

Cumulative year-end enrollment
37,836

2024–25

Share of students · 2024–25

This district
11.4%
Selected comparison
12.6%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 205 rated districts reporting

−1.2 pts vs similar economic context

Actions per 100 students · 2024–25

This district
25.66
Selected comparison
30.5

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 207 rated districts reporting

−4.8 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Spring ISD
School yearCumulative enrollmentStudentsall disciplineStudents% of enrollmentActionsall disciplineActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
2020–21 37,355 832 2.2% 1,386 3.71 7.8% 15.6
2021–22 38,059 4,479 11.8% 10,412 27.36 13.2% 31.2
2022–23 38,728 5,107 13.2% 12,091 31.22 13.7% 34.1
2023–24 38,666 5,349 13.8% 14,052 36.34 13.3% 32.7
2024–25 37,836 4,298 11.4% 9,708 25.66 12.6% 30.5
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Spring ISD in 2024–25
CategoryStudentsStudents% of enrollmentActionsActionsper 100 studentsStudentsselected comparison average %Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline 4,298 11.4% 9,708 25.66 12.6% 30.5
In-school suspensions 2,272 6.0% 3,857 10.19 10.3% 20.4
Out-of-school suspensions 3,000 7.9% 5,303 14.02 5.1% 8.5
DAEP placements 470 1.2% 529 1.40 3.2% 3.9
Mandatory DAEP placements 186 0.5% 203 0.54 1.8% 2.1
Discretionary DAEP placements 296 0.8% 326 0.86 1.8% 2.1
JJAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Mandatory JJAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Discretionary JJAEP placements Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Expulsions Suppressed — Suppressed — — —
Mandatory expulsions Not reported — Not reported — — —
Discretionary expulsions Suppressed — Suppressed — — —

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
212,629

2024 Census estimate

Children ages 5–17
42,669

Living inside the boundary

Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
11,263

26.4%

School-age child poverty rate
26.4%

11,263 of 42,669

Boundary population

This district
212,629
Selected comparison
48,697.4

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

School-age population

This district
42,669
Selected comparison
8,840.4

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

School-age population in poverty

This district
11,263
Selected comparison
2,141

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

School-age child poverty rate

This district
26.4%
Selected comparison
23.8%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 216 rated districts reporting

+2.6 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.

41 schools in this district

Number of schools in the district

This district
41
Selected comparison
12

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 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
24
Middle / Jr. High
9
High School
7
K-12
1
Browse all 41 schoolsName, type, rating, score and enrollment
Schools in this district
SchoolTypeRatingScoreStudents
Spring Early College AcademyHigh SchoolA99406
Carl Wunsche Sr HSHigh SchoolA971,511
Edward Roberson MSMiddle / Jr. HighA94854
Milton Cooper ElemElementaryA93700
Springwoods Village MSMiddle / Jr. HighB87581
Beneke ElemElementaryB87561
Momentum HSHigh SchoolB86178
John Winship ElemElementaryB86533
Mildred Jenkins ElemElementaryB86624
Northgate ElemElementaryB85605
Pearl M Hirsch ElemElementaryB83602
Anderson ElemElementaryB83585
Donna Lewis ElemElementaryB83688
Spring Leadership AcademyMiddle / Jr. HighB82555
Carolee Booker ElemElementaryB82668
Edwin M Wells MSMiddle / Jr. HighC79820
Chet Burchett ElemElementaryC79951
Westfield HSHigh SchoolC782,140
Spring HSHigh SchoolC772,358
Andy Dekaney HSHigh SchoolC772,344
Meyer ElemElementaryC77615
Clark ElemElementaryC75721
Pat Reynolds ElemElementaryC74888
Twin Creeks MSMiddle / Jr. HighC73823
Bammel ElemElementaryC73761
Smith ElemElementaryC73576
Ginger McNabb ElemElementaryC73760
Hoyland ElemElementaryC73625
Gloria Marshall ElemElementaryC71878
Deloras E Thompson ElemElementaryD69606
Rickey C Bailey MSMiddle / Jr. HighD67917
Dueitt MSMiddle / Jr. HighD66700
Ponderosa ElemElementaryD65666
Heritage ElemElementaryD65665
Ralph Eickenroht ElemElementaryD65590
Stelle Claughton MSMiddle / Jr. HighD61801
Helen Major ElemElementaryD61623
Salyers ElemElementaryF59448
Bammel MSMiddle / Jr. HighF57773
School for Accelerated LrnHigh SchoolNot Rated—1
Richey AcademyK-12Not Rated—92

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.

$11k$18k$25k20182020202220242025
  • Spring ISD
  • TEA peer group
  • Texas average
  • Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate

Spending per student · 2025

This district
$18,440
Selected comparison
$22,861

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting

−$4,421 vs similar economic context

This district spends $57 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $532 less per student than the state average.

View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
YearSpring ISDTEA peer groupTexas averageSelected comparison averageReportingselected comparison
2018$12,612$12,916$13,054$14,375 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting
2019$15,637$12,976$13,108$14,503 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting
2020$15,486$13,925$14,058$15,851 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting
2021$14,638$14,752$14,797$17,185 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting
2022$14,042$15,436$15,708$19,483 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting
2023$15,536$16,223$16,792$21,932 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting
2024$17,211$17,513$18,125$21,930 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting
2025$18,440$18,383$18,972$22,861 average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 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
$67,498+$2,882 vs similar economic context
Teachers
2,018+1527.5 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
16+2.0 vs similar economic context

Teaching experience

Spring ISD

Beginning: 15.9%1 to 5 years: 41.8%6 to 10 years: 19.9%11 to 20 years: 17.2%21 to 30 years: 4.6%Over 30 years: 0.5%
  • Beginning 15.9%
  • 1 to 5 years 41.8%
  • 6 to 10 years 19.9%
  • 11 to 20 years 17.2%
  • 21 to 30 years 4.6%
  • Over 30 years 0.5%

Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 reporting for every category shown · 217 in full cohort

Beginning: 7.4%1 to 5 years: 27.5%6 to 10 years: 17.8%11 to 20 years: 25.5%21 to 30 years: 16.3%Over 30 years: 5.6%
  • Beginning 7.4%
  • 1 to 5 years 27.5%
  • 6 to 10 years 17.8%
  • 11 to 20 years 25.5%
  • 21 to 30 years 16.3%
  • Over 30 years 5.6%

Teacher turnover over time

TEA reported a 30.8% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.

Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25

This district
30.8%
Selected comparison
23.3%

average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 217 rated districts reporting

+7.5 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Spring ISD
School yearTeacher turnover rateSpring ISDAverage turnover rateselected comparison
2020–2120.7%18.9%
2021–2225.0%22.0%
2022–2330.8%26.1%
2023–2425.7%23.6%
2024–2530.8%23.3%

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.

#4–10 rankings

Fourth- through tenth-place results

6 measures

  • 5of 19

    Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces

    Harris County · of the 19 that report this measure

  • 7of 19

    Per-student spending

    Harris County · of the 19 that report this measure

  • 8of 19

    Earned an industry-based certification

    Harris County · of the 19 that report this measure

  • 9of 19

    Earned a level I or level II certificate

    Harris County · of the 19 that report this measure

  • 10of 19

    Earned an associate degree

    Harris County · of the 19 that report this measure

  • 10of 19

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

    Harris County · of the 19 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.

Download this district as CSV · JSON · the whole dataset