← All posts
Texas School Finance · A 4-District Comparison

Austin's schools lead Texas on outcomes. Whether they look “efficient” depends on which dollars you count.

Austin ISD raises and spends the most per pupil of Texas's big urban districts — and posts the best results. It also sends roughly half of its local property taxes back to the state. That single fact can move its efficiency ranking from last toward the top.

52.2%
of Austin's local property taxes sent back to the state FY23–24
~$699M
Austin's recapture payment — #1 in Texas, $467.8M more than the next district
90.9%
Austin graduation rate — highest of any major Texas city Class of 2023
~2×
how much Austin's outcomes-per-dollar improve, measured against net rather than gross taxes
01 · The outcomes

On raw results, Austin is on top

Across the four largest urban districts in Texas, Austin ISD posts the strongest measured outcomes for the 2023–24 school year: the highest share of students at “Meets Grade Level or above” on STAAR, and the highest graduation rate of the group.

On raw outcomes, Austin is on top.

Chart 1 · SY 2023–24

STAAR “Meets” or above (all grades, all subjects) and four-year graduation rate, by district. Sorted by graduation rate.

STAAR is spring 2024; graduation rate is the class of 2023. * Fort Worth's STAAR figure (~25%) is approximate, weighted across grades 3–8. Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, 2023–24.
02 · The caveat

…but it serves a different population

Outcomes are driven heavily by student need, not by spending alone. Before reading too much into Chart 1, it's worth seeing who each district teaches. Austin serves the least economically disadvantaged population of the four — and the smallest share of emergent-bilingual students — context that partly explains its higher scores.

Austin teaches a lighter-need population than its peers.

Chart 2 · SY 2023–24

Share of students who are economically disadvantaged, and who are emergent bilingual / English learners (EB/EL), by district. Same order as Chart 1.

Economically-disadvantaged shares for Houston and Dallas are reported as approximate. Source: TEA PEIMS 2023–24 special-populations report.
03 · The money

Where the money goes: recapture

Here is the fact that complicates every efficiency comparison. Austin raises far more local property tax per pupil than its peers — but it does not keep most of it.

Recapture (“Robin Hood”): Texas requires property-wealthy districts to send a portion of their local tax dollars back to the state, which redistributes the money to property-poor districts.

Roughly half of Austin's local tax never reaches an Austin classroom.

Chart 3 · FY 2023–24

Gross local property tax per pupil, split into the amount the district keeps and the amount sent to the state through recapture.

Net retained — Austin
Net retained — peers est
Sent to state (recapture)
Estimated value
52% — about $699M — sent back to the state. The largest recapture payment of any district in Texas, and $467.8M more than the next-highest payer.
Only Austin's figures are firmly derived (from the district's own 52.2% / $699M disclosure). Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth gross-per-pupil amounts are estimates pending each district's FY2024 ACFR / TEA PEIMS data — shown hatched. Because their recapture is small, net ≈ gross.
04 · The flip

The efficiency flip

Now combine the two halves — outcomes and dollars — into a single ratio: outcome per $1,000 of local tax per pupil. Measured against the dollars a district raises, Austin looks inefficient; it raises so much. Measured against the dollars it actually keeps, its efficiency roughly doubles.

The asymmetry is the whole point. Austin's dots jump a long way. The peers' barely move — because recapture barely touches them.

Switch the denominator, and only Austin moves.

Chart 4 · SY/FY 2023–24

Each district's effectiveness ratio shown twice — against gross taxes (hollow dot) and net-of-recapture taxes (filled). The connecting line is the size of the recapture distortion.

Recapture — not classroom performance — drives the change. Peer ratios use estimated per-pupil denominators and are shown for scale, not precision; their gross and net values nearly coincide. * Fort Worth STAAR approximate.
05 · Two rankings

Two ways to rank the same district

The same outcomes and the same district can land in opposite halves of the table — depending only on which dollars sit in the denominator. Rank the four districts by STAAR points per $1,000 of tax and watch Austin move.

Same district, opposite story.

Chart 5 · STAAR per $1k

Districts ranked by efficiency against taxes raised (left) and taxes kept (right). Austin is the only district recapture moves; the peers stay put.

Measured on dollars raised, Austin ranks last — it raises the most per pupil. On dollars kept, it climbs past Fort Worth into the upper half. It doesn't overtake Houston or Dallas, which raise far less per pupil to begin with; peer positions depend on estimated denominators. * Fort Worth STAAR approximate.

Same outcomes, same district — opposite story, depending on which dollars you count. Austin is the most efficient big district in Texas, or among the least, and recapture is the reason the answer flips.

Notes & Methods

  1. Year mismatch. STAAR data are spring 2024 (SY2023–24); the graduation rate is the class of 2023 (SY2022–23). Combined effectiveness ratios are illustrative, not precise.
  2. Estimated figures. Gross local-tax-per-pupil for Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth are estimates pending each district's FY2024 ACFR / TEA PEIMS Summarized Financial Data. Austin's figures derive from the district's own recapture disclosure (52.2% / $699M).
  3. Recapture volatility. Dallas's recapture swings sharply year to year ($215.6M in 2023 → $46.1M in 2024) following 2023 homestead-exemption changes (Prop 4) and M&O rate compression. Fort Worth is a recent, very small recapture payer — not $0.
  4. “Effectiveness per dollar” is a contested framing. Property taxes collected are not the same as dollars spent on students, and outcomes are driven heavily by student need rather than spending alone. Treat this as one lens, not a verdict.
  5. Sources. TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports (TAPR) 2023–24; TEA recapture ledger; austinisd.org/budget/recapture; district budget documents; enrollment from TEA 2023–24 PEIMS; EB/EL figures from TEA PEIMS special-populations report.