This article presents a brief review of the 20/20 procedures and related challenges in special education; topics include cross-categorical programming, costs, needs for efficiency, accountability, and labeling. The authors present a method for using computerized, multiyear 20/20 analyses to estimate the reliability of classifications of schools according to their success in serving pupils at the margins: the highest achieving 20% and the lowest achieving 20% of students. This method offers educators a simplified approach to identification of most exceptional students: direct assessment of rates of progress in important school learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L.WalmsleyS. A. (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
2.
BerningerV.AbbottR. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In LyonG. R. (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 163–183). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
3.
FinkS. (1992, October). How we restructured our categorical programs. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 42–43.
4.
HanushekE. A. (1994, October 12–13). Outcomes, costs and incentives in schools. Paper presented at conference on Improving the Performance of America's Schools: Economic Choices, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
5.
HeistadD.ReynoldsM. C. (1995). 20/20 analysis: A citywide computer-based application. Education and Urban Society, 27(4), 396–410.
6.
HellerK. A.HoltzmanW.MessickS. (1982). Placing children in special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
HiebertE. H.ColtJ. M.CattoS. L.GurgE. M. (1992). Reading and writing of Grade 1 students in a restructured Chapter I program. American Education Research Journal, 29, 545–572.
8.
JenkinsJ. R.PiousC. G.PetersonD. L. (1988). Categorical programs for remedial and handicapped students: Issues of validity. Exceptional Children, 55, 147–158.
9.
MadausG. F. (1979). Testing and funding: Measurement and policy issues. In SchroderW. B. (Ed.), Measurement and educational policy (pp. 53–61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
MandevilleG. K. (1988). School effectiveness indices revisited: Cross-year stability. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 349–356.
11.
MeyerR. H. (1995). Value-added indicators of school performance. Chicago: University of Chicago, Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies.
12.
MooreM. T.StrangE. W.SchwartzM.Brad-DockM. (1988). Patterns in special education delivery and cost. Washington, DC: Decision Resources. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 303 027).
13.
ReynoldsM. C.ZetlinA. G.HeistadD. (1996). A manual for 20/20 analysis. Philadelphia: Temple University, Center for Research in Human Development and Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 183).
14.
ReynoldsM. C.ZetlinA. G.WangM. C. (1993). 20/20 analysis: Taking a close look at the margins. Exceptional Children, 59, 294–300.
15.
ShaywitzS. E.EscobarM. D.ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M.MakuchR. (1992). Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower rail of a normal distribution of reading ability. The New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145–150.
16.
SlavinR. E. (1991). Neverstreaming: Prevention and early intervention as an alternative to special education. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 373–378.
17.
SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L.WasikB. A. (1994). Preventing early school failure: Research, policy and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Sixteenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 531).
20.
ZetlinA. G.MacLeodE. (1995). A school-university partnership working toward the restructure of an urban school and community. Education and Urban Society, 27(4), 411–420.
