When the Texas Education Agency released its latest A–F accountability ratings, communities across Texas saw headlines about “failing schools” and “D-rated districts.” In Waco, for example, families read that their district earned a D with multiple schools at risk of intervention. Understandably, that caused concern. But what was missing was context.
The Statewide Picture
This year, TEA rated 9,084 campuses across Texas. 938 received a D and 399 received an F. That’s 1,337 campuses, or about 15 percent statewide, branded as struggling.
Separately, TEA flagged 348 campuses with consecutive “unacceptable” ratings under Senate Bill 1365. Once a campus reaches five consecutive years, state sanctions — including potential takeover — can be triggered.
Yet the story is more complicated than “winners and losers.” TEA’s own data shows that 31 percent of campuses improved their rating year-over-year, and the number of F-rated schools fell from roughly 8 percent to 4 percent. That’s important progress, and a reminder that these grades only capture part of the picture.
How the System Works
Texas assigns A–F ratings using three domains. Student Achievement measures STAAR and end-of-course results, college, career, and military readiness, and graduation rates. School Progress looks at year-over-year growth and comparisons to similar campuses. Closing the Gaps evaluates outcomes for student groups across achievement, growth, and readiness.
On paper, this framework balances performance and growth. In practice, shifts to both the state test and accountability methodology in 2023 reshaped how schools are judged. Because ratings were delayed in 2023 and 2024 by lawsuits, this year marked the first full, on-time release since 2019.
Trust on the Line
Accountability should give families a clear, fair understanding of how schools are doing. Instead, shifting definitions and moving benchmarks have created confusion. A “D” this year doesn’t mean the same thing as a “D” two years ago, yet that nuance rarely makes it into headlines.
Distrust is poison for public education. It grows when grades shift meaning from year to year and when families are left wondering whether the system reflects reality or politics.
A single grade flattens the complexity of teaching, resources, poverty, mobility, staffing shortages, and year-to-year progress. Worse, it risks discouraging families and communities who deserve the full picture.
Kingsville ISD Superintendent Emeritus Dr. Cissy Reynolds-Perez saw the impact firsthand. Her district was projected to earn a C, but under the accountability changes in 2023, that shifted overnight to an F. “The accountability system is neither fair nor lawful,” she said, emphasizing that abrupt shifts hit high-poverty and high-need districts hardest.
Bryan ISD Board of Trustees President Dr. Julie Harlan echoed that reality: “Schools are not suddenly worse overnight because of a change in the accountability system.”
Where the Conversation Should Be
Accountability should measure more than test scores. It should provide transparency through a stable, shared language that families can trust. It should align resources and staffing to the expectations being set. It should add context by looking at ratings alongside poverty levels, student mobility, and system changes. And it should foster partnership, with families, businesses, and community leaders leaning in, not just pointing fingers.
The Right Kind of Focus
Waco ISD Superintendent Tiffany Spicer has been clear: the district is not discouraged, it is focused. That’s the right mindset. But focus should also apply at the state level. If Texas is serious about improving outcomes, it must be honest about what these grades do — and do not — mean.
Letter grades make easy headlines. But our children’s potential and our teachers’ work deserve more than a sound bite.
Be Part of the Change
Want to be part of changing the narrative about public schools in Texas? Explore 8 Weeks to Trust and join us in building a foundation of trust that lasts.