This article presents “20/20 Analysis” as an experimental, output-oriented, noncategorical alternative to traditional approaches to identification of students for special education. 20/20 Analysis identifies students showing least (below 20th percentile) and most (above 80th percentile) progress toward important objectives of education in a school. The situation of each student in low 20% and high 20% groups is then examined as a basis for broad (noncategorical) approaches to improvement of learning opportunities. Case studies of two schools are presented. Policy implications are considered briefly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L., & McGill-FranzenA. (1989). School response to reading failure: Instruction for Chapter 1 and special education students in grades two, four and eight. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 529–542.
2.
BereiterC. (1985). The changing face of educational disadvantagement. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(8), 538–554.
3.
BrophyJ. (1986). Research linking teacher behavior to student achievement: Potential implications for instruction of Chapter 1 students. In WilliamsB. I.RichmondP. A., & MasonB. J. (Eds.), Designs for compensatory education: Conference proceedings and papers (pp. 121–179). Washington, DC: Research and Evaluation Associates.
4.
EppsS., & TindalG. (1987). The effectiveness of differential programming in serving students with mild handicaps: Placement options and instructional programming. In WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C., & WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 213–248). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
5.
FelixN.HertleinF.McKennaD., & RaybornR. (1987). Combining categorical program services can make a major difference. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(10), 787–788.
6.
HaynesM. C., & JenkinsJ. R. (1986). Reading instruction in special education resource rooms. American Educational Research Journal, 8, 161–190.
7.
HellerK. A.HoltzmanW. H., & MessickS. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8.
HobbsN. (1980). An ecologically oriented service-based system for the classification of handicapped children. In SalzingerE.AntrobusJ., & GlickJ. (Eds.), The ecosystem of the “risk” children (pp. 271–290). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
9.
National Association of School Psychologists/National Coalition of Advocates for Students. (1985). Advocacy for appropriate educational services for all children. Washington, DC: Author.
10.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1991). Interim report of the Study Group on Special Education. Alexandria, VA: Author.
ReynoldsM. C. (1991). Classification and labeling. In LloydJ. W.SinghN. N., & ReppA. C. (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues and models (pp. 29–41). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing.
13.
StoneB.CundickB. P., & SwansonD. (1988). Special education screening system: Group achievement test. Exceptional Children, 55, 71–75.
14.
WangM. C.ReynoldsM. C., & WalbergH. J. (1989). A rebuttal to Vergason and Anderegg: Who benefits from segregation and murky water?Phi Delta Kappan, 71(1), 64–67.
