This paper examines alternative assessment methods for students with disabilities, reviewed in the context of the No Child Left Behind Act's requirement that all students demonstrate measurable learning. Drawing on three peer-reviewed articles from Exceptional Children, the paper evaluates portfolio assessment, anecdotal records, running records, and authentic assessment as alternatives to group achievement tests. It discusses the strengths and limitations of each approach, including issues of standardization, quantification, and teacher burden. The paper also considers how well these methods address academic progress versus life-skills domains, concluding that educators continue to struggle with identifying consistent and meaningful ways to assess students for whom traditional tests provide little useful information.
Alternative forms of assessment have taken on new importance since the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) required that schools demonstrate students are learning. While the standard assessment for most schools is some form of group achievement test, some students do not perform well on such tests, making them a poor measure of individual progress. Other students have special needs, and their progress must be evaluated differently than that of children with no impediments to learning.
Delzell et al. (2003) examined alternative forms of assessment and evaluation, noting that in the past, children with learning difficulties were simply excluded from testing. However, current special education law requires that their learning be evaluated in some form. Their study also looked at requirements to tie these assessments to state standards.
One of the most widely discussed methods for alternative assessment is the portfolio. A portfolio is simply a collection of information that demonstrates, as completely as possible, how a student is performing as a learner. It may include goals from an Individualized Education Program (IEP), documentation of progress toward those goals, anecdotal notes, work samples, and even video recordings of the student engaged in schoolwork (Delzell et al., 2003). The authors examined when a portfolio might be used, as well as methods for quantifying the evaluation, such as through the use of a rubric.
The authors noted a variety of difficulties associated with portfolio use, including the possibility that the contents could be too vague to demonstrate whether a student was actually progressing. They also observed that there is no evidence that the use of portfolios for evaluation has raised expectations for the students involved.
This article provided a thorough overview of the issues involved but did not point to concrete solutions to the problems that arise when using portfolio assessment or other alternative forms of evaluation.
Courtade-Little (2005) also notes the increased importance that student evaluation has taken on since the passage of NCLB. In her work, she found that anecdotal artifacts were used most often as part of a larger evaluation process, typically a portfolio. She specifically researched the effect that teacher training in instructional strategies might have on student scores under alternate assessment. This research has significant surface validity: alternative teaching strategies might be better evaluated through alternative assessments. She noted that a number of variables could affect the results of alternate assessment, including the technical characteristics of the evaluation method, available educational resources, student characteristics, access to curriculum, methods of data collection, and the effectiveness of instruction (Courtade-Little, 2005).
The research raised a number of interesting questions. For instance, the fact that a teacher learned alternative instructional approaches did not necessarily mean those approaches would be implemented in practice. While the author's primary method was the portfolio, she noted that anecdotal information could be an important component of that data. However, the information gathered and how it was organized illustrates the broader difficulty of using any alternative method to measure student progress. Student results were classified into four domains: community, communication, career/vocational, and personal/home management. This framework raises several questions: Where is the evaluation of academic progress within those four domains? Can schools adequately measure a student's ability to manage a home environment? While home management has long-term implications for students with significant disabilities, it is unclear how effectively a school — particularly a non-residential one — can evaluate those skills.
"Olsen's review of recollection, records, and testing"
"Shared burdens and unresolved gaps across studies"
Consider, for example, a student learning to use public transportation, with progress measured through authentic assessment: a teacher or aide must accompany the student on the bus and observe how well the student navigates the entire process. This kind of direct, real-world observation — while educationally meaningful — places significant logistical burdens on already stretched school staff. The broader question of how to make authentic assessment both rigorous and practical remains unresolved across all three of the reviewed studies.
All three papers give the strong impression that, across a span of years, educators are still struggling with the concept of alternate assessment and how to best evaluate the progress of students for whom group achievement tests provide little useful information. The research reviewed here reflects meaningful efforts to develop workable alternatives, yet no consensus has emerged on methods that are simultaneously rigorous, standardized, comprehensive, and manageable within the realities of everyday classroom practice.
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.