−4.5 ptsvs 84.5 average · 244 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
183 of 244tied with 8 others
Score vs region
−4.7 ptsvs 84.7 average · 58 rated districts in Region 17: Lubbock
Region 17: Lubbock placement
40 of 58tied with 4 others
Score vs county
−10.0 ptsvs 90 average · 2 rated districts in Dickens County
Score vs similar-size group
−3.8 ptsvs 83.8 average · 184 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
125 of 184tied with 8 others
Score vs state
−1.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
592 of 1,019tied with 52 others
B80
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 88 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 84.5 average for 244 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 84.7 average for 58 rated districts in Region 17: Lubbock.The current score is below the 90 average for 2 rated districts in Dickens County.The current score is below the 83.8 average for 184 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
Strengths and momentum
Current strength
Earned college credit for a dual credit course above the similar-context average
87.5%+48.6 pts vs 38.9%
87.5% is 48.6 percentage points above
the 38.9% average among 233 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
1st of 233 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
Four-Year Graduation Rate above the similar-context average
100%+3 pts vs 97%
100% is 3 percentage points above
the 97% average among 234 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure (standard accountability only).
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
Spur ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 80 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 84.5 average for 244 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 8 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 183rd of 244 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 8 others).
Spur ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 80 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 84.7 average for 58 rated districts in Region 17: Lubbock. It is down 8 points since 2021-22.
Spur ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 80 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 90 average for 2 rated districts in Dickens County. It is down 8 points since 2021-22.
Spur ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 80 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 83.8 average for 184 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 8 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 125th of 184 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 8 others).
Spur ISD is rated B by TEA, scoring 80 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 8 points since 2021-22.
Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
Compare against
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated B with 88 that year.
Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.
Texas builds the overall rating from the better of Student Achievement and School Progress, weighted 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. School Progress is itself the better of Academic Growth and Relative Performance. The 60, 70, 80 and 90 rules mark the letter-grade thresholds.
Student Achievement83 B−2.3 vs similar economic context · 244 reporting
School Progress77 C−4.2 vs similar economic context · 244 reporting
Closing the Gaps73 C−9.2 vs similar economic context · 244 reporting
Academic Growth62 D−13.1 vs similar economic context · 244 reporting
Relative Performance77 C−3.3 vs similar economic context · 244 reporting
Spur ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (244 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
83
B
7
School Progress
77
C
3
Closing the Gaps
73
C
7
Academic Growth
62
D
8
Relative Performance
77
C
3
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 7 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 (83), so
School Progress (77) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 83.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level75%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Meets grade level49%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Masters grade level16%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level78%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Meets grade level57%−4 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Masters grade level17%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level67%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Meets grade level36%−14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Masters grade level14%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level77%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 243 reporting
Meets grade level51%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 243 reporting
Masters grade level11%−18 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 243 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level85%+6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 237 reporting
Meets grade level56%+2 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 237 reporting
Masters grade level18%−7 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 237 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (244 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
100.0%+3.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
100.0%+2.6 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 232 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
100.0%+2.5 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
0.0%−0.3 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 234 rated districts reporting
These measures use TEA's standard-accountability population. Each comparison average includes only districts in that population that report that specific measure; its reporting count is shown beside the average. It is an unweighted average of those reported district rates, not a pooled rate across every student in the group.
College, career and military readiness
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%+10.1 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
100.0%
89.9%
+10.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
25.0%
58.6%
−33.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
25.0%
33.6%
−8.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
0.0%
9.0%
−9.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
87.5%
38.9%
+48.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
62.5%
41.9%
+20.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
0.0%
1.5%
−1.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
2.5%
−2.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
37.5%
4.7%
+32.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
0.0%
2.9%
−2.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
25.0%
8.0%
+17.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
0.0%
3.4%
−3.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 233 rated districts reporting
Every row is a share of this district's graduates, and every row is a way of
meeting CCMR — so on every row, a bigger share is better. Difference is this
district minus the average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate,
counted in percentage points: +5.0 would mean five more graduates in every hundred met that
criterion here. The selected comparison is an unweighted average of the reported district percentages, not a pooled rate across all graduates in the group. Graduates may meet several criteria, so the rows do not add up to the total.
Counts in the comparison controls describe full cohort membership, not the denominator of every average. Each average uses only districts for which TEA reported that measure; metric-specific reporting counts are shown on the STAAR, graduation and CCMR rows and may vary.
Who this district serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Students
210
Economically disadvantaged
40.0%−1.5 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
0.0%−7.3 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
21.4%+3.8 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.7%−0.5 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
15.7%+4.4 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Spur ISD
African American 0.5%
Hispanic 36.2%
White 61%
Two or More Races 2.4%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting for every category shown · 244 in full cohort
African American 3.9%
Hispanic 30.9%
White 59.8%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 17: Lubbock · 58 reporting for every category shown · 58 in full cohort
African American 2.1%
Hispanic 57.7%
White 38%
American Indian 0.2%
Asian 0.4%
Two or More Races 1.6%
Selected comparison averageFor Dickens County · 2 reporting for every category shown · 2 in full cohort
African American 0.3%
Hispanic 34%
White 64.6%
Two or More Races 1.2%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 184 reporting for every category shown · 184 in full cohort
African American 2.6%
Hispanic 35.9%
White 58.1%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.2%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 2.9%
Statewide average1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
African American 6.3%
Hispanic 43.1%
White 45.4%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 1.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.3%
Student counts behind the percentages
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
Students in this TEA accountability summary
210
Economically disadvantaged students
84
Emergent bilingual students
0
Special education students
45
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 210 students in 2025–26, an increase of 18 (9.4%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
210
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
+18
Increase · +9.4%
Change since 2021–22
−11
Decrease · −5.0%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
210
Selected comparison
4,748.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Spur ISD
School year
Students enrolledSpur ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
221
First available year
4,608.8
2022–23
225
Increase of 4 (1.8%)
4,702.5
2023–24
205
Decrease of 20 (8.9%)
4,745.1
2024–25
192
Decrease of 13 (6.3%)
4,774
2025–26
210
Increase of 18 (9.4%)
4,748.1
The selected comparison column is the average enrollment among reporting districts in that group. It changes with the comparison control; this district's own counts do not.
These counts show how enrollment changed, not why. Attendance-zone changes, school openings or closures, grade reconfigurations, transfers and population shifts can affect the total.
Students crossing district lines
How many students live in one public-school district and attend in another. These are movement counts, not a measure of family satisfaction or school quality.
Transfers in
33
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
24
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
+9
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
33
Selected comparison
288.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 237 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
24
Selected comparison
465.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 231 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
+9
Selected comparison
−181
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 226 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Spur ISD
School year
Transfers inSpur ISD
Transfers outSpur ISD
In minus outSpur ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
21
42
−21
235.7
366.9
−138
2022–23
28
41
−13
237.2
393.7
−161
2023–24
28
44
−16
248
403.2
−159
2024–25
26
50
−24
269.5
445.8
−181
2025–26
33
24
+9
288.1
465.7
−181
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Patton Springs ISD 06390615
Crosbyton CISD 05490113
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 4 counterpart counts and masked 2.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Jayton-Girard ISD 13290210
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 4 counterpart counts and masked 3.
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
8.5% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
32
15.17 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
211
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
8.5%
Selected comparison
8.9%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 210 rated districts reporting
−0.4 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
15.17
Selected comparison
18.6
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 219 rated districts reporting
−3.4 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Spur 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
253
12
4.7%
26
10.28
7.4%
14.3
2021–22
252
Suppressed
—
23
9.13
—
19.2
2022–23
240
46
19.2%
146
60.83
9.6%
20
2023–24
229
15
6.5%
24
10.48
9.4%
20.2
2024–25
211
18
8.5%
32
15.17
8.9%
18.6
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Spur ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
18
8.5%
32
15.17
8.9%
18.6
In-school suspensions
16
7.6%
24
11.37
7.9%
14.1
Out-of-school suspensions
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
DAEP placements
Suppressed
—
Suppressed
—
—
—
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
1,443
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
179
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
36
20.1%
School-age child poverty rate
20.1%
36 of 179
Boundary population
This district
1,443
Selected comparison
29,706.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
179
Selected comparison
5,194.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
36
Selected comparison
507.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
20.1%
Selected comparison
12.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
+7.8 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.
1 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
1
Selected comparison
7.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 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.
K-12
1
Browse all 1 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.
Spur ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$22,294
Selected comparison
$23,932
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
−$1,638 vs similar economic context
This district spends $3,635 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $3,322 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Spur ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$15,637
$14,290
$13,054
$14,040
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
2019
$17,719
$14,384
$13,108
$14,506
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
2020
$17,374
$16,581
$14,058
$15,433
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
2021
$17,135
$17,863
$14,797
$16,378
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
2022
$20,064
$19,817
$15,708
$17,855
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
2023
$19,205
$21,827
$16,792
$19,227
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
2024
$24,076
$23,517
$18,125
$22,072
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
2025
$22,294
$25,929
$18,972
$23,932
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 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
$59,978−$5,257 vs similar economic context
Teachers
20−303.9 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
10.4−2.2 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Spur ISD
1 to 5 years 32.2%
6 to 10 years 23.8%
11 to 20 years 13.9%
21 to 30 years 29.7%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 reporting for every category shown · 244 in full cohort
Beginning 5.1%
1 to 5 years 21.3%
6 to 10 years 18%
11 to 20 years 31.7%
21 to 30 years 18.7%
Over 30 years 5.2%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 17: Lubbock · 58 reporting for every category shown · 58 in full cohort
Beginning 5.8%
1 to 5 years 24.7%
6 to 10 years 17.1%
11 to 20 years 26.1%
21 to 30 years 18.6%
Over 30 years 6%
Selected comparison averageFor Dickens County · 2 reporting for every category shown · 2 in full cohort
1 to 5 years 45.9%
6 to 10 years 11.9%
11 to 20 years 16.5%
21 to 30 years 25.5%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 184 reporting for every category shown · 184 in full cohort
Beginning 7.3%
1 to 5 years 22.3%
6 to 10 years 16.4%
11 to 20 years 28.4%
21 to 30 years 19%
Over 30 years 6.6%
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 16.2% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
16.2%
Selected comparison
18.2%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 244 rated districts reporting
−2.0 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Spur ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateSpur ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
11.1%
14.4%
2021–22
13.1%
17.9%
2022–23
33.7%
19.2%
2023–24
30.9%
19.2%
2024–25
16.2%
18.2%
TEA defines this district rate as the share of teacher full-time equivalents from the prior fall who are not employed as teachers in the district in the current fall. That can include leaving the district or remaining in a different role; it is not a campus-level measure. The comparison average changes with the selected group; this district's reported rate does not.
Out of 160 rankings computed across every published metric and every available comparison group, these are all the measures that meet this site’s distinctive-placement threshold. The list does not change when you change Compare against. Each measure appears once, using its strongest placement. Press Copy for a citable sentence.
#1 rankings
First-place results
2 measures
1of 233
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 233 that report this measure
1of 167
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
Similar size · of the 167 that report this measure
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
1 measure
3of 233
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Similar economic-disadvantage rate · of the 233 that report this measure · tied with 1
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
1 measure
8of 57
Earned an industry-based certification
Region 17: Lubbock · of the 57 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.