Skip to main content
First District RESA
Toombs County
Georgia Milestones · 2025–26

How Toombs County compares

A statewide ranking mostly ranks size and affluence. These are the fairer questions: how does this system do against districts of similar size, districts serving similar students, and districts at a similar poverty rate?

Georgia: 43.9%

English Language Arts results for 2025–26 have not been published yet. “All subjects” scores and rankings cover the published subjects only.

Proficient or Distinguished
39.9%
−4.0 pts vs. Georgia
Similar size
34th of 68
Districts testing a similar number of students
Demographic
16th of 21
Districts serving similar student populations
vs. poverty
+8.7 pts
Typical at 100% ED: 31.2%
Most aligned district
Closest combined match on size, demographics, and poverty rate
Their score
53.9%
Toombs County
39.9%−14.0 pts
Tested
2,195 (you: 1,899)
Econ. disadvantaged
99% (you: 100%)
15% SWD · 8% EL · 18% Black · 23% Hisp. · 54% White

Peer group 1

Districts of similar size

The 68 Georgia districts testing between half and one-and-a-half times as many students as Toombs County on all subjects (1,899 tests taken), ranked by score.

Rank
District
Proficient or Distinguished
Tested
1
Academy For Classical Education
72.0%
1,291 tested
31, tied
Pickens County
40.6%
2,516 tested
31, tied
40.6%
1,360 tested
33
Greene County
40.0%
1,659 tested
34
Toombs County (this district)
39.9%
1,899 tested
35
Irwin County
39.7%
1,012 tested
36
Butts County
38.4%
2,280 tested
37
Cook County
37.7%
1,865 tested

Toombs CountyOther districtsGeorgia average (43.9%)Bars run 0–100%.

Peer group 2

Demographic peers

The 20 Georgia districts whose tested populations look most like Toombs County's — matched on shares of race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learner students.

Rank
District
Proficient or Distinguished
Tested
1
Buford City12% SWD · 8% EL · 11% Black · 25% Hisp. · 46% White
72.7%
4,072 tested
13
Cartersville City11% SWD · 9% EL · 20% Black · 24% Hisp. · 48% White
47.6%
3,050 tested
14
Hart County17% SWD · 6% EL · 20% Black · 13% Hisp. · 58% White
43.8%
2,457 tested
15
Bartow County16% SWD · 6% EL · 10% Black · 20% Hisp. · 63% White
43.6%
9,170 tested
16
Toombs County (this district)21% SWD · 6% EL · 17% Black · 27% Hisp. · 51% White
39.9%
1,899 tested
17
Barrow County17% SWD · 13% EL · 16% Black · 31% Hisp. · 42% White
37.7%
10,239 tested
18
Candler County15% SWD · 5% EL · 26% Black · 22% Hisp. · 48% White
36.9%
1,342 tested
19
Polk County17% SWD · 11% EL · 12% Black · 28% Hisp. · 53% White
34.3%
4,724 tested

Toombs CountyOther districtsGeorgia average (43.9%)Bars run 0–100%.

Peer group 3

Against the poverty trend

Proficiency tracks how many students a district serves in poverty, so a plain ranking partly ranks affluence. This places every Georgia district against the statewide trend — above the line is out-performing districts serving similar student populations.

GOSA has not published enrollment figures for 2025–26 yet, so each district is placed by its 2024–25 poverty rate — the most recent published. Scores are 2025–26’s own.

100% of Toombs County’s students are economically disadvantaged. Georgia districts at that level typically score 31.2%; Toombs County scores 39.9% — +8.7 pts above that trend.

Toombs CountyGeorgia districtStatewide trend192 districts · poverty explains 44% of the variation · 2024–25 poverty rates

The 15 districts closest in poverty rate

Rank
District
Proficient or Distinguished
vs. trend
1
Toombs County (this district)100% economically disadvantaged
39.9%
+8.7 pts vs. poverty trend
2
Telfair County100% economically disadvantaged
39.6%
+8.4 pts vs. poverty trend
3
Spring Creek Charter Academy100% economically disadvantaged
38.3%
+7.1 pts vs. poverty trend
4
Taylor County100% economically disadvantaged
37.3%
+6.1 pts vs. poverty trend
5
Thomaston-Upson County100% economically disadvantaged
37.2%
+6.0 pts vs. poverty trend
6
Johnson County100% economically disadvantaged
35.8%
+4.6 pts vs. poverty trend
7
Clay County100% economically disadvantaged
34.5%
— vs. poverty trend
8
Seminole County100% economically disadvantaged
34.1%
+2.9 pts vs. poverty trend
9
Montgomery County100% economically disadvantaged
32.7%
+1.5 pts vs. poverty trend
10, tied
Ben Hill County100% economically disadvantaged
32.6%
+1.4 pts vs. poverty trend
10, tied
Coffee County100% economically disadvantaged
32.6%
+1.4 pts vs. poverty trend
12
Randolph County100% economically disadvantaged
32.3%
+1.1 pts vs. poverty trend
13
Dekalb Brilliance Academy100% economically disadvantaged
30.9%
−0.3 pts vs. poverty trend
14
Decatur County100% economically disadvantaged
29.7%
−1.5 pts vs. poverty trend
15
Pulaski County100% economically disadvantaged
27.9%
−3.3 pts vs. poverty trend

Toombs CountyOther districtsGeorgia average (43.9%)“vs. trend” is coloured only more than one residual standard deviation from the statewide line.Bars run 0–100%.

Source: Georgia Milestones district aggregates published by the Governor's Office of Student Achievement, All Students, all grades. “All subjects” weights each subject by students tested. Similar-size bands use the number of students tested rather than enrollment — it is published for every district and is the population the scores actually describe. Demographic peers are the twenty districts whose tested populations look most like this system's own, matched on shares of race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, and English learner students in EOG Mathematics. The poverty comparison uses the share of enrolled students identified as economically disadvantaged in GOSA's Enrollment by Subgroup Metrics file, fitted against proficiency by least squares across all districts testing at least 200 students. Georgia identifies economically disadvantaged students by direct certification, and districts operating the Community Eligibility Provision report every student as eligible — so the measure compresses at the top and describes the trend, not any individual cause. See every First District system on the statewide ranking.