−13.3 ptsvs 80.3 average · 391 rated districts serving a similar economic context
Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
377 of 391tied with 1 other
Score vs region
−11.6 ptsvs 78.6 average · 36 rated districts in Region 05: Beaumont
Region 05: Beaumont placement
35 of 36among reporting districts
Score vs county
−9.6 ptsvs 76.6 average · 5 rated districts in Tyler County
Score vs similar-size group
−13.9 ptsvs 80.9 average · 258 similarly sized rated districts
Similar size placement
249 of 258tied with 3 others
Score vs state
−14.7 ptsvs 81.7 average · 1,019 rated Texas districts
Texas placement
983 of 1,019tied with 6 others
D67
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is flat; under the rules in force back then it scored 79 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 80.3 average for 391 rated districts serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 78.6 average for 36 rated districts in Region 05: Beaumont.The current score is below the 76.6 average for 5 rated districts in Tyler County.The current score is below the 80.9 average for 258 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 an industry-based certification above the similar-context average
47%+3.8 pts vs 43.2%
47% is 3.8 percentage points above
the 43.2% average among 378 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
Woodville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 67 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 80.3 average for 391 rated districts serving a similar economic context. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 377th of 391 rated districts serving a similar economic context (tied with 1 other).
Woodville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 67 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 78.6 average for 36 rated districts in Region 05: Beaumont. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Woodville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 67 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 76.6 average for 5 rated districts in Tyler County. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Woodville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 67 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 80.9 average for 258 similarly sized rated districts. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
Ranks 249th of 258 similarly sized rated districts (tied with 3 others).
Woodville ISD is rated D by TEA, scoring 67 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.7 average for 1,019 rated Texas districts. It is unchanged since 2021-22.
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
2
2026 TEA list
Campuses on the final PEG transfer list
0
2026–27 school year
Share of campuses identified for improvement
This district
66.7%
Selected comparison
24.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
+42.4 pts vs similar economic context
Share of campuses on the PEG list
This district
0.0%
Selected comparison
3.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
−3.7 pts vs similar economic context
See the campuses and official reasons
Official improvement and Public Education Grant notices for campuses in Woodville ISD
Targeted Support and Improvement · African American, Economically Disadvantaged, Special Education
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.
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 C with 79 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 Achievement69 D−10.9 vs similar economic context · 391 reporting
School Progress67 D−13.8 vs similar economic context · 391 reporting
Closing the Gaps61 D−16.5 vs similar economic context · 390 reporting
Academic Growth59 F−12.1 vs similar economic context · 391 reporting
Relative Performance67 D−13.3 vs similar economic context · 391 reporting
Woodville ISD
Similar economic-disadvantage rate (391 in cohort)
Domain scores
Domain
Score
Grade
Points to next grade
Student Achievement
69
D
1
School Progress
67
D
3
Closing the Gaps
61
D
9
Academic Growth
59
F
1
Relative Performance
67
D
3
Closest to moving up: Student Achievement, 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 (69), so
School Progress (67) is published above but does not enter the overall
score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 69.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
All Subjects
Approaches grade level66%−8 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Meets grade level36%−11 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Masters grade level11%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Reading3 performance levels
Approaches grade level66%−10 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Meets grade level40%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Masters grade level12%−6 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Math3 performance levels
Approaches grade level61%−9 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Meets grade level28%−12 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Masters grade level9%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting
Science3 performance levels
Approaches grade level73%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 388 reporting
Meets grade level45%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 388 reporting
Masters grade level16%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 388 reporting
Social Studies3 performance levels
Approaches grade level70%−5 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 385 reporting
Meets grade level31%−15 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 385 reporting
Masters grade level6%−14 vs Similar economic-disadvantage rate · 385 reporting
Approaches grade level
Meets grade level
Masters grade level
Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (391 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
92.9%−3.4 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 377 rated districts reporting
Five-Year
94.4%−2.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 374 rated districts reporting
Six-Year
94.2%−2.2 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 374 rated districts reporting
Dropout Rate
1.5%+1.0 pts vs similar economic contextaverage fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 379 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
76.0%−13.1 pts vs similar economic context
CCMR criteria
Criterion
This district% of graduates
Averagesimilar economic context
Differencepercentage points
Reportingselected comparison
Total credit for CCMR criteria
76.0%
89.1%
−13.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course
19.3%
56.8%
−37.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA
12.0%
25.1%
−13.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s)
1.2%
5.2%
−4.0
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Earned college credit for a dual credit course
33.7%
33.4%
+0.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Earned an industry-based certification
47.0%
43.2%
+3.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Earned a level I or level II certificate
8.4%
1.7%
+6.7
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Earned an associate degree
0.0%
3.4%
−3.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit
0.0%
2.4%
−2.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness
1.2%
3.5%
−2.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
10.8%
9.0%
+1.8
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated districts reporting
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
6.0%
3.7%
+2.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 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
69
Class of 2023–24
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
31
44.9% of graduates
Not found in Texas public higher-ed records
36
52.2% of graduates
Not trackable
2
Fall 2024
Graduates in the report
This district
69
Selected comparison
357.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 284 rated districts reporting
Enrolled in Texas public higher education
This district
31
Selected comparison
152.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 284 rated districts reporting
Texas-public enrollment rate
This district
44.9%
Selected comparison
43.6%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 284 rated districts reporting
+1.3 pts vs similar economic context
Not-found rate
This district
52.2%
Selected comparison
53.0%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 284 rated districts reporting
−0.8 pts vs similar economic context
Not-trackable rate
This district
2.9%
Selected comparison
3.4%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 284 rated districts reporting
−0.5 pts vs similar economic context
Most common named Texas public destinations
ANGELINA COLLEGE (006661)6
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
1,172
Economically disadvantaged
64.1%+0.4 pts vs similar economic context
English learners
5.0%−7.4 pts vs similar economic context
Special education
25.7%+7.1 pts vs similar economic context
Attendance
94.3%−0.1 pts vs similar economic context
Chronically absent
18.0%+2.3 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Woodville ISD
African American 19.5%
Hispanic 15.2%
White 55%
American Indian 2.4%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 7.1%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting for every category shown · 391 in full cohort
African American 6%
Hispanic 43.5%
White 45.7%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.8%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 3.5%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 05: Beaumont · 36 reporting for every category shown · 36 in full cohort
African American 12.3%
Hispanic 18.1%
White 63.7%
American Indian 0.4%
Asian 1.1%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or More Races 4.3%
Selected comparison averageFor Tyler County · 5 reporting for every category shown · 5 in full cohort
African American 4.7%
Hispanic 7.8%
White 81.7%
American Indian 0.7%
Asian 0.4%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 4.4%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 258 reporting for every category shown · 258 in full cohort
African American 5.5%
Hispanic 41.5%
White 48.3%
American Indian 0.3%
Asian 0.6%
Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.6%
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
1,169
Economically disadvantaged students
749
Emergent bilingual students
59
Special education students
301
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 1,172 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 24 (2.0%) from 2024–25.
Latest enrollment
1,172
2025–26
Change from 2024–25
−24
Decrease · −2.0%
Change since 2021–22
−91
Decrease · −7.2%
Enrollment in 2025–26
This district
1,172
Selected comparison
3,700.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
Student enrollment by school year for Woodville ISD
School year
Students enrolledWoodville ISD
Change from previous school year
Average enrollmentselected comparison
2021–22
1,263
First available year
3,740.6
2022–23
1,239
Decrease of 24 (1.9%)
3,778.3
2023–24
1,215
Decrease of 24 (1.9%)
3,768.2
2024–25
1,196
Decrease of 19 (1.6%)
3,772.3
2025–26
1,172
Decrease of 24 (2.0%)
3,700.4
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
74
Live in another district; attend here · 2025–26
Transfers out
180
Live here; attend in another public district or charter · 2025–26
Transfers in minus transfers out
−106
Arithmetic context only
Transfers in · 2025–26
This district
74
Selected comparison
210.9
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 370 rated districts reporting
Transfers out · 2025–26
This district
180
Selected comparison
504.5
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 376 rated districts reporting
Transfers in minus out · 2025–26
This district
−106
Selected comparison
−312
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 357 rated districts reporting
Official transfer totals by school year for Woodville ISD
School year
Transfers inWoodville ISD
Transfers outWoodville ISD
In minus outWoodville ISD
Transfers inselected comparison average
Transfers outselected comparison average
In minus outselected comparison average
2021–22
92
152
−60
158.1
410.2
−268
2022–23
88
173
−85
175.8
430.1
−272
2023–24
82
172
−90
185.8
463.6
−291
2024–25
76
186
−110
207.2
487.8
−293
2025–26
74
180
−106
210.9
504.5
−312
Largest reported origins for transfers in
Big Sandy ISD 18790125
Colmesneil ISD 22990114
Chester ISD 22990612
Warren ISD 22990410
Top reported flows only. TEA published 4 of 8 counterpart counts and masked 4.
Largest reported destinations for transfers out
Warren ISD 22990456
Spurger ISD 22990538
Colmesneil ISD 22990137
Chester ISD 22990627
Hallsville ISD 10290413
Top reported flows only. TEA published 5 of 10 counterpart counts and masked 5.
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
295
22.0% of cumulative year-end enrollment
Disciplinary actions
764
56.93 per 100 students
Cumulative year-end enrollment
1,342
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
This district
22.0%
Selected comparison
11.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 349 rated districts reporting
+10.7 pts vs similar economic context
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
This district
56.93
Selected comparison
25.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 360 rated districts reporting
+31.8 vs similar economic context
TEA all-discipline student and action counts by school year for Woodville 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
1,416
259
18.3%
632
44.63
8.5%
17.4
2021–22
1,426
333
23.4%
845
59.26
11.4%
25.1
2022–23
1,397
302
21.6%
819
58.63
11.9%
27.3
2023–24
1,364
321
23.5%
762
55.87
11.6%
26.4
2024–25
1,342
295
22.0%
764
56.93
11.3%
25.1
See 2024–25 discipline categories
TEA discipline categories for Woodville ISD in 2024–25
Category
Students
Students% of enrollment
Actions
Actionsper 100 students
Studentsselected comparison average %
Actionsselected comparison average per 100
All discipline
295
22.0%
764
56.93
11.3%
25.1
In-school suspensions
269
20.0%
619
46.13
9.8%
18.6
Out-of-school suspensions
59
4.4%
92
6.86
3.7%
5.6
DAEP placements
43
3.2%
53
3.95
2.7%
3.3
Mandatory DAEP placements
18
1.3%
20
1.49
1.7%
2
Discretionary DAEP placements
29
2.2%
33
2.46
1.5%
1.7
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
10,352
2024 Census estimate
Children ages 5–17
1,233
Living inside the boundary
Children ages 5–17 in families in poverty
289
23.4%
School-age child poverty rate
23.4%
289 of 1,233
Boundary population
This district
10,352
Selected comparison
23,001.1
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
School-age population
This district
1,233
Selected comparison
4,156.2
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
School-age population in poverty
This district
289
Selected comparison
720.3
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
School-age child poverty rate
This district
23.4%
Selected comparison
18.7%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
+4.7 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.
3 schools in this district
Number of schools in the district
This district
3
Selected comparison
6.4
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 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
Middle / Jr. High
1
Browse all 3 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.
Woodville ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
This district
$34,205
Selected comparison
$23,131
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
+$11,074 vs similar economic context
This district spends $14,444 more per student than TEA's peer group, and $15,233 more per student than the state average.
View yearly spending figures
Spending per student by year
Year
Woodville ISD
TEA peer group
Texas average
Selected comparison average
Reportingselected comparison
2018
$12,015
$13,246
$13,054
$14,227
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
2019
$16,080
$12,865
$13,108
$14,307
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
2020
$13,630
$13,729
$14,058
$15,195
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
2021
$15,002
$14,629
$14,797
$16,237
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
2022
$15,862
$15,859
$15,708
$17,857
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
2023
$22,280
$17,414
$16,792
$19,631
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
2024
$36,154
$19,844
$18,125
$21,316
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
2025
$34,205
$19,761
$18,972
$23,131
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 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
$61,160−$2,924 vs similar economic context
Teachers
102−150.0 vs similar economic context
Students per staff member
11.4−0.8 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Woodville ISD
Beginning 7.1%
1 to 5 years 31.6%
6 to 10 years 18.6%
11 to 20 years 19%
21 to 30 years 16%
Over 30 years 7.6%
Selected comparison averageFor districts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 reporting for every category shown · 391 in full cohort
Beginning 6.9%
1 to 5 years 25%
6 to 10 years 17.5%
11 to 20 years 27.4%
21 to 30 years 17.4%
Over 30 years 5.8%
Selected comparison averageFor Region 05: Beaumont · 36 reporting for every category shown · 36 in full cohort
Beginning 6.3%
1 to 5 years 24.8%
6 to 10 years 18.2%
11 to 20 years 27.1%
21 to 30 years 16.3%
Over 30 years 7.3%
Selected comparison averageFor Tyler County · 5 reporting for every category shown · 5 in full cohort
Beginning 10.7%
1 to 5 years 21.3%
6 to 10 years 14.9%
11 to 20 years 25.3%
21 to 30 years 19.3%
Over 30 years 8.3%
Selected comparison averageFor similarly sized districts · 258 reporting for every category shown · 258 in full cohort
Beginning 5.7%
1 to 5 years 23.2%
6 to 10 years 17.2%
11 to 20 years 29.3%
21 to 30 years 18.7%
Over 30 years 5.6%
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 15.9% teacher turnover rate in 2024–25.
Teacher turnover rate · 2024–25
This district
15.9%
Selected comparison
22.3%
average fordistricts with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 391 rated districts reporting
−6.4 pts vs similar economic context
District teacher turnover rate by school year for Woodville ISD
School year
Teacher turnover rateWoodville ISD
Average turnover rateselected comparison
2020–21
23.7%
17.3%
2021–22
26.9%
21.2%
2022–23
27.1%
24.7%
2023–24
24.6%
22.0%
2024–25
15.9%
22.3%
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.
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.
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
1 measure
3of 36
Per-student spending
Region 05: Beaumont · of the 36 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
3 measures
6of 35
Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces
Region 05: Beaumont · of the 35 that report this measure
8of 35
Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student
Region 05: Beaumont · of the 35 that report this measure · tied with 1
10of 35
Earned a level I or level II certificate
Region 05: Beaumont · 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.
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.