Austin ISD, 2025 → 2026 Accountability
Where the district gained, and what the gains are worth
**Written by Anthropic Claude AI, Opus 5Across 110 rated campuses, Austin ISD added +289 scaled points, a mean of +2.6 per campus. Seventy campuses gained, 14 held flat, 26 declined. The district itself moved from a C (77) to a B (81).
The more important finding is where the movement happened. Three-quarters of the district's net gain — +218 of +289 — came from campuses that started below 70. This was not a rising tide. It was concentrated improvement at the bottom of the distribution.
THE GAINS
Improvement scaled inversely with starting position. The lower a campus began, the more it moved:
Started F, below 60 — 23 campuses, mean +5.9, net +136
Started D, 60–69 — 18 campuses, mean +4.6, net +82
Started C, 70–79 — 24 campuses, mean +2.1, net +51
Started B, 80–89 — 23 campuses, mean +0.5, net +12
Started A, 90+ — 22 campuses, mean +0.4, net +8
Fourteen campuses crossed out of D/F territory into 70 or above — the most consequential category of movement, because it changes a campus's standing rather than just its score. Among them: Wooldridge (59→87), Ortega (65→85), Sadler Means (69→85), Oak Hill (69→83), Rodriguez (69→82), McBee (69→80), Andrews (64→79), Winn Montessori (57→75), Eastside ECHS (63→75), T.A. Brown (59→72), and Bedichek (59→71).
The district's D-or-F count fell from 41 to 31, while A-or-B campuses rose from 45 to 57.
By level, elementary carried the district: mean +3.1 across 77 campuses, and +5.7 among the 32 that started below 70. Middle schools averaged +1.6, high schools +1.7.
On Title I, the raw comparison (+2.9 versus +2.1) overstates the story. Controlling for starting position reverses it. Among campuses starting below 70, Title I averaged +5.1. Among those starting 70–79, Title I averaged +1.3 against +6.2 for non–Title I. Among those starting 80 or above, Title I averaged −1.6 against +1.2. Title I campuses gained because most of them started low, not because Title I status predicted improvement. The honest framing is that the district improved its lowest-performing campuses, and those campuses are overwhelmingly Title I — not that Title I campuses outperformed.
GAINS THAT DON'T COUNT YET
Thirteen campuses gained points but remain D or F. Several represent real progress that simply hasn't arrived: Houston +19 (48→67), Sánchez +17 (52→69), and Hart +11 (57→68) are each within a few points of crossing.
Others are gains in name only. Oak Springs 58→59, Widen 57→58, Barrington 56→59, Overton 55→59, and Burnet 54→59 all moved up while staying in the F band. A one-point gain from 58 is not improvement; it is a campus holding still. Twenty campuses remain below 60 — down only three from 23 — and every one is Title I. Six of those twenty gained a point or less, and three were exactly flat.
THE LOSSES
Most declines don't matter. Five campuses lost ground while staying at 85 or above: Mathews (96→91), Summitt (92→89), Gorzycki (93→91), Lamar (90→89), and Brentwood (91→90). These are noise against a high baseline and warrant no attention.
Five losses are serious, either because they erased a strong position or pushed an already-fragile campus further down:
Mendez MS, 89→65, −24. Largest swing in the district. A B-rated middle school fell to D in one year.
Allison EL, 62→47, −15. Lowest score in AISD. Already below standard, and lost a third of its remaining margin.
Pillow EL, 70→59, −11. Dropped out of passing into the F band.
Zavala EL, 76→65, −11. Lost a solid C and fell below 70.
Travis Heights EL, 85→76, −9. Held its B, but gave up nine points from a healthy position.
Four campuses fell below 70: Mendez, Pillow, Zavala, and Travis ECHS (70→66). Against 14 that rose above it, that's a net improvement of ten — but these four are new problems that did not exist last year.
One pattern worth flagging: all 15 campuses with meaningful declines are Title I. Combined with the concentration of large gains in the same group, this describes volatility rather than direction. Title I campuses in AISD occupy both tails.
CAVEATS
Scaled scores are not strictly comparable year over year. TEA's 2026 system revised the CCMR military-readiness indicator and the Progress-to-ELP targets within Closing the Gaps, so some portion of any campus's movement reflects methodology rather than performance. Treat swings under roughly ±3 points as inside that margin. Blazier is plotted as the elementary campus; Uphaus ECC, International HS, and the PreK Partnership are excluded for lack of a comparable 2025 rating.
Sources: TEA 2026 campus accountability file (CDALLS scaled scores); Austin ISD published 2025 accountability results.