“The Day of Reckoning: CSCOPE vs. PEG List”
By Donna Garner
1.10.14
The Texas Education Agency has just released the list of 892 Texas public school campuses that have been identified as low performing because of poor test scores or unacceptable ratings under the Public Education Grant program (PEG):
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/peg/2013/peg_list_2014-15.pdf
Below is the list of CSCOPE school districts/school systems as of 8.25.12: http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/cscope-list-of-texas-school-districts-school-systems-as-of-8-25?xg_source=activity
By comparing the two lists posted above (PEG vs. CSCOPE), the public should be able to determine generally whether CSCOPE is helping or hindering the academic performance of Texas students.
The following chart tells what the abbreviations found in the far right-hand column on the PEG List mean.
| Reasons for Identification: | |
| R |
The STAAR/TAKS passing rate inReading/English Language Artswas 50 percent or below for the tested grades at the campus (2011, 2012, 2013). |
| W |
The STAAR/TAKS passing rate inWriting was 50 percent or below for the tested grades at the campus (2011 or 2013). |
|
M |
The STAAR/TAKS passing rate inMathematics was 50 percent or below for the tested grades at the campus (2011, 2012, 2013). |
| C |
The STAAR/TAKS passing rate inScience was 50 percent or below for the tested grades at the campus (2011 or 2013). |
| S |
The STAAR/TAKS passing rate inSocial Studies was 50 percent or below for the tested grades at the campus (2011 or 2013). |
| AU |
The campus was ratedAcademically Unacceptable (2011), or Improvement Required (2013). |
More information about the methodology used to prepare the PEG List can be found at: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/peg/2013/method_exp.pdf
Donna Garner
