Traditional public school campus
Fairview Special Programs
Sterling County · Region 15: San Angelo · 4 students
At a glance
TEA did not issue an overall rating for Fairview Special Programs for 2025-26. Everything TEA did publish for this school is below.
Read the full rating context and placement
TEA did not issue an overall rating for Fairview Special Programs for 2025-26. Everything TEA did publish for this school is below.
TEA did not issue an overall rating for Fairview Special Programs for 2025-26. Everything TEA did publish for this school is below.
TEA did not issue an overall rating for Fairview Special Programs for 2025-26. Everything TEA did publish for this school is below.
TEA did not issue an overall rating for Fairview Special Programs for 2025-26. Everything TEA did publish for this school is below.
TEA did not issue an overall rating for Fairview Special Programs for 2025-26. Everything TEA did publish for this school is below.
TEA did not issue an overall rating for this school. Scores below are the figures TEA published; the letter grades are the state's where it issued them.
Put the numbers in context
Compare with
Jump to a section
5 years of ratings
Follow the solid line to see how this school has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years.
Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.
View the yearly scores and comparisons
| Year | Rating | Score | Selected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rate | StateTexas average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | Not Rated | — | 78.4 2,083 reporting | 81.3 7,646 reporting |
| 2024-25 | Not Rated | — | 77.9 2,068 reporting | 81.2 7,554 reporting |
| 2023-24 | Not Rated | — | 75.8 2,054 reporting | 78.9 7,466 reporting |
| 2022-23 | Not Rated | — | 76.3 2,029 reporting | 79.1 7,377 reporting |
| 2021-22 | Not Rated | — | 81.7 2,013 reporting | 83.7 7,283 reporting |
Where the score comes from
Texas builds the overall rating from the better of Student Achievement and School Progress, weighted 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. School Progress is itself the better of Academic Growth and Relative Performance. The 60, 70, 80 and 90 rules mark the letter-grade thresholds.
- Fairview Special Programs
- Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,083 in cohort)
| Domain | Score | Grade | Points to next grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Achievement | — | Not rated | — |
| School Progress | — | Not rated | — |
| Closing the Gaps | — | Not rated | — |
| Academic Growth | — | Not rated | — |
| Relative Performance | — | Not rated | — |
The scores above are the ones TEA published. TEA did not issue letter grades for this school, so none are shown: the A–F thresholds marked on the chart are the state's, but applying them here would produce a grade the state chose to withhold.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
- Approaches grade level
- Meets grade level
- Masters grade level
- Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (2,083 in cohort)
Percentage of tests at or above each level. Masters is a subset of Meets, which is a subset of Approaches. The selected-comparison tick on each bar marks the average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate — a comparison TEA does not publish.
Graduation
- Four-Year
- 0.0%−93.7 pts vs similar economic context average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 378 rated schools reporting
- Five-Year
- 0.0%−93.2 pts vs similar economic context average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 377 rated schools reporting
- Six-Year
- 0.0%−92.7 pts vs similar economic context average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 377 rated schools reporting
These measures use TEA's standard-accountability population. Each comparison average includes only schools in that population that report that specific measure; its reporting count is shown beside the average. It is an unweighted average of those reported school rates, not a pooled rate across every student in the group.
College, career and military readiness
| Criterion | This school% of graduates | Averagesimilar economic context | Differencepercentage points | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA, or earned credit for a college prep course | 0.0% | 59.2% | −59.2 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Scored at or above the college ready standard on SAT, ACT, TSIA | 0.0% | 25.7% | −25.7 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Met criterion score on AP/IB exam(s) | 0.0% | 12.0% | −12.0 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Earned college credit for a dual credit course | 0.0% | 32.1% | −32.1 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Earned an industry-based certification | 0.0% | 37.0% | −37.0 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Earned a level I or level II certificate | 0.0% | 2.3% | −2.3 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Earned an associate degree | 0.0% | 7.4% | −7.4 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Completed an OnRamps course and qualified for college credit | 0.0% | 5.0% | −5.0 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Graduated with completed individualized education program (IEP) and workforce readiness | 0.0% | 3.3% | −3.3 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Graduated under an advanced diploma plan and identified as a current special education student | 100.0% | 8.2% | +91.8 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
| Enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces | 0.0% | 2.9% | −2.9 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 421 rated schools reporting |
Every row is a share of this school's graduates, and every row is a way of meeting CCMR — so on every row, a bigger share is better. Difference is this school minus the average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate, counted in percentage points: +5.0 would mean five more graduates in every hundred met that criterion here. The selected comparison is an unweighted average of the reported school percentages, not a pooled rate across all graduates in the group. Graduates may meet several criteria, so the rows do not add up to the total.
Counts in the comparison controls describe full cohort membership, not the denominator of every average. Each average uses only schools for which TEA reported that measure; metric-specific reporting counts are shown on the STAAR, graduation and CCMR rows and may vary.
Who this school serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
- Students
- 4
- Economically disadvantaged
- 75.0%±0.0 pts vs similar economic context
- English learners
- 25.0%+1.0 pts vs similar economic context
- Special education
- 100.0%+81.2 pts vs similar economic context
- Attendance
- 83.7%−9.9 pts vs similar economic context
- Chronically absent
- 100.0%+81.0 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Fairview Special Programs
- Hispanic 50%
- White 50%
Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 2,083 reporting for every category shown · 2,083 in full cohort
- African American 13.2%
- Hispanic 61.9%
- White 19.4%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 1.9%
- Pacific Islander 0.2%
- Two or More Races 3.1%
Selected comparison average For Region 15: San Angelo · 124 reporting for every category shown · 124 in full cohort
- African American 1.5%
- Hispanic 51.7%
- White 43.8%
- American Indian 0.1%
- Asian 0.5%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 2.4%
Selected comparison average For Sterling County · 2 reporting for every category shown · 2 in full cohort
- African American 4.9%
- Hispanic 52.3%
- White 37.8%
- Asian 0.2%
- Two or More Races 4.9%
Selected comparison average For similarly sized schools · 2 reporting for every category shown · 2 in full cohort
- Hispanic 66.7%
- White 33.4%
Statewide average 7,646 reporting for every category shown · 7,646 Texas schools in full cohort
- African American 11.5%
- Hispanic 52.6%
- White 27.8%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 4.2%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 3.4%
Student counts behind the percentages
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
- Students in this TEA accountability summary
- 4
- Economically disadvantaged students
- 3
- Emergent bilingual students
- 1
- Special education students
- 4
Campus mobility · 2024–25
- Mobile students
- 0
- Students in TEA mobility denominator
- 4
- TEA-published mobility rate
- 0%
The mobility count and rate use TEA’s separate 2024–25 campus denominator shown above, not current enrollment. This site does not recalculate a missing rate.
The first figure is TEA’s student count for this accountability summary. It is a separate publication from the fall PEIMS enrollment shown above and can differ; this site does not substitute one for the other. Counts come from TEA’s 2025-26 accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026. A reported zero is shown as 0. Small-number and complementary masks, unavailable values, and blank not-reported fields stay separate and are never estimated. TEA masking definitions.
Discipline and removal from class
TEA’s annual student and action counts, kept separate and divided only by the matching full-year enrollment. These figures describe removals from instruction, not a simple safe-or-unsafe score.
- Students in TEA’s all-discipline count
- Not reported
Rate not available
- Disciplinary actions
- Not reported
Rate not available
- Cumulative year-end enrollment
- Suppressed
2024–25
| School year | Cumulative enrollment | Studentsall discipline | Students% of enrollment | Actionsall discipline | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | Suppressed | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| 2021–22 | Suppressed | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| 2022–23 | Suppressed | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| 2023–24 | Suppressed | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| 2024–25 | Suppressed | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
See 2024–25 discipline categories
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| In-school suspensions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Out-of-school suspensions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Mandatory DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| JJAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Mandatory JJAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary JJAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Expulsions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Mandatory expulsions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary expulsions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized schools can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this school's own counts and rates remain fixed.
Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.
Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.
Where this comes from
The Texas Education Agency publishes the underlying accountability reports and data downloads. Ratings, outcomes, demographics, staffing and finance on this page come from TEA data available through txschools.gov, fetched 15 August 2026. TEA’s Reports and Data Portal links the official bulk files. Enrollment history comes from TEA's PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The student-count context comes from TEA’s bulk accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026; TEA’s masking definitions explain withheld values. The dated notice, staffing, discipline, transfer, community and postsecondary sections cite their separate TEA, Census or THECB publication in place. Every archived source carries checksums so each number stays traceable to the bytes the public agency served.
Download the full dataset · this campus's district
Single-file records are pre-built for district-level records only, so there is no per-campus CSV to
link here. Producing both formats for every entity would consume most of the 20,000-asset deployment limit before
pages and shared data are counted. This campus is a row
in the bulk files on the download page, keyed by its TEA id 216901195.