Independent Texas school research. TEA data, clearly explained. Not affiliated with the state agencyTEA.
Geographic public school district
Lavaca County · Region 03: Victoria · 164 students
Official district websiteEnrollment, registration and eligibility
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 96 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 88.4 average for 88 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 80.7 average for 37 rated districts in Region 03: Victoria.The current score is below the 82.2 average for 6 rated districts in Lavaca County.The current score is below the 82.8 average for 162 similarly sized rated districts.The current score is below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts.
Evidence worth noticing
STAAR result
Among 87 districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measureSTAAR result
Among 35 districts in Region 03: Victoria reporting this measure.
See the full measureCurrent strength
11.5% −1.7 pts vs 13.2%
No academic result met this site’s published threshold for a selected positive signal against Lavaca County.
STAAR result
Among 162 similarly sized districts reporting this measure.
See the full measureSTAAR result
Among 155 similarly sized districts reporting this measure.
See the full measureSTAAR result
Among 161 similarly sized districts reporting this measure.
See the full measureSTAAR result
Among 998 Texas districts reporting this measure.
See the full measureCurrent strength
11.5% −3.6 pts vs 15.1%
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.
Sweet Home ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 75 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 88.4 average for 88 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is down 18 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 86th of 88 rated districts serving a similar economic context.
Sweet Home ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 75 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 80.7 average for 37 rated districts in Region 03: Victoria. It is down 18 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 30th of 37 rated districts in Region 03: Victoria (tied with 1 other).
Sweet Home ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 75 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.2 average for 6 rated districts in Lavaca County. It is down 18 points since 2021-22.
Sweet Home ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 75 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 82.8 average for 162 similarly sized rated districts. It is down 18 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 122nd of 162 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 8 others).
Sweet Home ISD is rated C by TEA, scoring 75 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is down 18 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 818th of 1,019 rated Texas districts (tied with 33 others).
Put the numbers in context
Follow the solid line to see how this district has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated A with 96 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.
| Year | Rating | Score | Selected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rate | StateTexas average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | C | 75 | 88.4 88 reporting | 81.7 1,019 reporting |
| 2024-25 | B | 86 | 87.6 88 reporting | 80.3 1,019 reporting |
| 2023-24 | B | 85 | 86.4 87 reporting | 78.7 1,017 reporting |
| 2022-23 | B | 86 | 86.4 88 reporting | 79.2 1,018 reporting |
| 2021-22 | A | 93 | 87.1 88 reporting | 80.6 1,017 reporting |
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.
| Domain | Score | Grade | Points to next grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Achievement | 78 | C | 2 |
| School Progress | 63 | D | 7 |
| Closing the Gaps | 69 | D | 1 |
| Academic Growth | 63 | D | 7 |
| Relative Performance | 57 | F | 3 |
Closest to moving up: Closing the Gaps, 1 point below C 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 (78), so School Progress (63) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 78.
Percentage of tests at or above each level. Masters is a subset of Meets, which is a subset of Approaches. The selected-comparison tick on each bar marks the average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate — a comparison TEA does not publish.
Counts in the comparison controls describe full cohort membership, not the denominator of every average. Each average uses only districts for which TEA reported that measure; metric-specific reporting counts are shown on the STAAR, graduation and CCMR rows and may vary.
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
Sweet Home ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 88 reporting for every category shown · 88 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Region 03: Victoria · 37 reporting for every category shown · 37 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Lavaca County · 6 reporting for every category shown · 6 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 162 reporting for every category shown · 162 in full cohort
Statewide average 1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
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.
TEA-reported student enrollment for each available school year. Enrollment growth or decline is not a measure of school quality.
TEA reported 164 students in 2025–26, an increase of 9 (5.8%) from 2024–25.
2025–26
Increase · +5.8%
Increase · +20.6%
| School year | Students enrolledSweet Home ISD | Change from previous school year | Average enrollmentselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 136 | First available year | 4,947.1 |
| 2022–23 | 145 | Increase of 9 (6.6%) | 5,098.3 |
| 2023–24 | 148 | Increase of 3 (2.1%) | 5,176 |
| 2024–25 | 155 | Increase of 7 (4.7%) | 5,252.7 |
| 2025–26 | 164 | Increase of 9 (5.8%) | 5,191.3 |
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.
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.
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Arithmetic context only
| School year | Transfers inSweet Home ISD | Transfers outSweet Home ISD | In minus outSweet Home ISD | Transfers inselected comparison average | Transfers outselected comparison average | In minus outselected comparison average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 88 | 49 | +39 | 206 | 289.6 | −80 |
| 2022–23 | 89 | 45 | +44 | 203.5 | 308.8 | −103 |
| 2023–24 | 90 | 45 | +45 | 201.3 | 338.1 | −131 |
| 2024–25 | 96 | 46 | +50 | 216.8 | 362.8 | −145 |
| 2025–26 | 104 | 39 | +65 | 231.7 | 400.2 | −168 |
Top reported flows only. TEA published 2 of 7 counterpart counts and masked 5.
Top reported flows only. TEA published 1 of 3 counterpart counts and masked 2.
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.
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.
Rate not available
Rate not available
2024–25
| School year | Cumulative enrollment | Studentsall discipline | Students% of enrollment | Actionsall discipline | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 150 | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| 2021–22 | 142 | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| 2022–23 | 145 | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| 2023–24 | 150 | Suppressed | — | 25 | 16.67 | — | 12.6 |
| 2024–25 | 158 | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| In-school suspensions | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| Out-of-school suspensions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Mandatory DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| 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.
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.
2024 Census estimate
Living inside the boundary
3.5%
5 of 141
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.
The selected comparison is a neutral average district size. This district's school count and school-type mix remain its own facts.
| School | Type | Rating | Score | Students |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweet Home Elem | Elementary | C | 75 | 164 |
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.
This district spends $9,185 less per student than TEA's peer group, and $2,228 less per student than the state average.
| Year | Sweet Home ISD | TEA peer group | Texas average | Selected comparison average | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $8,571 | $14,290 | $13,054 | $18,339 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 87 rated districts reporting |
| 2019 | $9,791 | $14,384 | $13,108 | $18,091 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 87 rated districts reporting |
| 2020 | $10,658 | $16,581 | $14,058 | $19,990 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 87 rated districts reporting |
| 2021 | $11,433 | $17,863 | $14,797 | $22,909 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 87 rated districts reporting |
| 2022 | $15,355 | $19,817 | $15,708 | $22,699 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 88 rated districts reporting |
| 2023 | $10,873 | $21,827 | $16,792 | $25,865 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 88 rated districts reporting |
| 2024 | $12,030 | $23,517 | $18,125 | $29,016 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 88 rated districts reporting |
| 2025 | $16,744 | $25,929 | $18,972 | $31,025 | average for districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 88 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.
Sweet Home ISD
Selected comparison average For districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 88 reporting for every category shown · 88 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Region 03: Victoria · 37 reporting for every category shown · 37 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For Lavaca County · 6 reporting for every category shown · 6 in full cohort
Selected comparison average For similarly sized districts · 162 reporting for every category shown · 162 in full cohort
Statewide average 1,019 reporting for every category shown · 1,019 Texas districts in full cohort
TEA reported a 7.7% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
| School year | Teacher turnover rateSweet Home ISD | Average turnover rateselected comparison |
|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 0.0% | 12.7% |
| 2021–22 | 0.0% | 16.3% |
| 2022–23 | 36.0% | 19.1% |
| 2023–24 | 33.3% | 19.4% |
| 2024–25 | 7.7% | 18.7% |
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.
Out of 96 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.
Fourth- through tenth-place results
3 measures
Social Studies — Approaches
Region 03: Victoria · of the 35 that report this measure
Social Studies — Meets
Region 03: Victoria · of the 35 that report this measure
Social Studies — Masters
Region 03: Victoria · of the 35 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.
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.