honoring ways of knowing

March 2000 Women’s Educational Equity Act (WEEA) Resource Center at EDC, 55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02458 • 800-225-3088

Continued p. 2, “Ways of Knowing”

Inside:WEEA Resources ................3

Additional Resources .......5

Organizations .....................9

Academic Accountabilityfor Students withDisabilities and LEP ....... 12

Honoring Ways of KnowingBy A. Lin Goodwin, Teachers College, Columbia University

Notions of “educational excellence” or “edu-cation for all” are too seldom actualized be-cause such conversations often sidestep theblatant reality of inequitable educational prac-tices. Voluminous data exist that articulate howschools help to structure inequality, ensuringthat all students, particularly those outside thepower culture—students of color1 and girls—are afforded limited or uneven access to learn-ing opportunities.2 Thus, despite the manypositive changes that have occurred to supportracial, gender, and class equality, middle-classwhite boys continue to outstrip girls and chil-dren of color in terms of achievement, access

to resources, vocational choice,and life options.

Some theories about inter-rupting this persistent trend haveemphasized the disjuncture be-tween the dominant paradigmthat frames schooling and themultiplicities demonstrated by di-verse learners.3 Schools conformto and perpetuate narrow concep-

tions and measurements of intelligence, know-ing, and success, views that invariably find chil-dren of color and girls wanting.4 One cannothelp but wonder what would happen were weto change both the way we teach and how weassess what children know. What might thismean for the educational attainment of thosechildren who are served least well by schools?

This article begins with a brief summary ofthe school experiences of children of color andgirls in an effort to bring to the surface the waysin which schools structure inequality and edu-cators’ (and society’s) unrelenting low and lim-iting expectations for these students. It then dis-cusses how authentic assessment can precipitatea shift away from knowledge as discrete and in-telligence as static, and foster teachers’ deeper

understanding of children of color and girls’ abili-ties, gifts, and ways of knowing. In the article, Iargue that authentic assessment can result intransformative teaching that honors children’sdiversities and multiple ways of knowing andlearning, and nurtures all their talents.

Variability in School ExperiencesThis section begins with a basic assumption:that each of us is multiply identified. Any dis-cussion that attempts to separate race from gen-der, from class, from language, from heritage,and so on, is inherently faulty; we each areshaped by our cultures, see the world throughour experiences, and are culturally complex.While I do acknowledge that children’s experi-ences in schools cannot be simplistically framedby any individual cultural characteristic, myreview nonetheless relies upon a body of lit-erature that sometimes accentuates one aspectof identity over or to the exclusion of others.My discussion is not meant to be exhaustive,but rather is designed to highlight some of thedifferent ways in which children of color andgirls encounter school. In it, I draw on two in-formative reviews5 of the differential school ex-periences in relation to gender and race con-ducted by Carter and Goodwin (1994) andGrossman and Grossman (1994).

Teaching and learning are reciprocal andcyclical actions that occur primarily through theinteractions that students and teachers havewith one another. It is often the quality of theseinteractions that determines the quality of one’seducational experience. Studies have shownthat a qualitative difference exists in the inter-actions teachers have with children of color andwith girls. Girls are less likely to be praised,called upon, or given positive feedback thantheir male classmates. Teachers are more likely

on Education Assessmenton Education Assessment

WEquityResourceCenter

E

E

ADigest

March 2000 • WEEA Equity Resource Center at EDC, 55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02458-1060 • 800-225-3088

Education Assessment2


Ways of Knowing . . . continued

Textbooksand teachingmaterialscontinue topay scantattentionto theexperiencesof womenand peopleof color.

to afford boys additional response time and in-structional assistance, to integrate their ideas intoclassroom discussions, and to offer them encour-agement. African American and Latino children,especially boys, receive more criticism and pun-ishment and are more likely to be suspendedfrom school than European American students.It has been found that teachers respond morenegatively to African American high-achievinggirls than European American girls (who alsoreceive less positive attention than EuropeanAmerican boys, high-achieving or otherwise) andtend to encourage—and reward—social skillsversus academic behavior on the part of AfricanAmerican girls. When one examines the litera-ture on teachers’ interactions with their students,an implicit hierarchy emerges. It appears that Eu-ropean American boys benefit from the most fa-vorable teacher interactions, followed by Euro-pean American girls, then girls of color,particularly African American girls, with AfricanAmerican and Latino boys receiving the leastpositive teacher attention.

Differences in curricula also affect oppor-tunities to learn. Textbooks and teaching mate-rials continue to pay scant attention to the ex-periences of women and people of color.Textbook exemplars used to illustrate conceptsand topics continue to portray males and whitesmore frequently and more advantageously thanfemales and individuals of color. Additionally,evidence indicates that girls are more likely tobe encouraged to pursue “soft” sciences suchas biology over high-status subjects such asphysics and engineering, and that boys aremore likely than girls and children of color tobe steered toward math- and science-relatedcourses. Research has also found that childrenperceived as “disadvantaged” are more likelyto be fed a steady diet of low-level, skill-basedwork—such as basic computation in mathemat-ics and decoding in reading—and relegated tocognitively undemanding academic tasks. Infact, children of color are disproportionatelyassigned to the lowest academic tracks, specialeducation, and the lowest-ability groups, wherethey are often exposed to curricula that are sim-plified, reduced, and watered down.

Teachers’ differential treatment of childrenof color and girls has been linked to the lowand limited expectations teachers have forthem. Teachers perceive girls to be less academi-

cally capable than boys, yet view girls of coloras less able than white girls, and boys of coloras less able than girls of color. Again, the im-plicit hierarchy mentioned earlier becomes vis-ible. It seems that educators have unknowinglyabsorbed the racist ideology that permeatesAmerican institutions, regulations, structures,and society, and diminishes people of color andwomen. This racist ideology is socially andpurposefully constructed and maintained, tothe extent that educators come to accept differ-ential achievement as the norm and so behavein ways that uphold this norm. Interrupting thismindset and its damaging consequences re-quires conscious action and a deliberate changein the way classroom business is conducted.

Coming to Know Ways of KnowingNumerous investigations have sought to dis-cern the mediating influence of race and cul-ture on children’s ways of knowing and sense-making styles.6 For example, Huber andPewewardy (1990) conducted an extensive re-view of research examining cultural cognitivestyles that concluded with the notion that dif-ferent racial and ethnic groups display numer-ous cognitive, learning-style, interactional, andcommunicative preferences.7 Researchers andscholars have theorized that the differentialschool experiences and academic achievementof children of color may be attributed to a mis-match between the culture of the school andthe home cultures of pupils. This concept hasbeen variously described as “bicultural ambiva-lence,”8 “cultural discontinuity or incongru-ence,”9 and an absence of “cultural synchroni-zation.”10 These theories raise the possibility thatculturally and linguistically diverse children maylearn in culture-specific ways and require instruc-tion that capitalizes on their learning styles andstrengths, rather than emphasizing their “defi-cits.” These theories also suggest that

the manner in which children of color receive,manipulate, transform, and express knowl-edge, as well as their task and modality prefer-ences and the ways in which they interact andcommunicate with others, may not be well ex-plained by mainstream learning theory tradi-tionally grounded in white children’s ways ofknowing.11

The growing body of evidence that sup-ports the idea of culturally grounded learning,

3

WEEA Digest • WEEA Equity Resource Center at EDC, 55 Chapel Street, Newton, MA 02458-1060 • 800-225-3088

March 2000

WEEA Resources on Assessment

To orderWEEAmaterialscall ourdistributioncenter at800-793-5076.

Practical Tools and Support forGender-Fair LearningThe WEEA Equity Resource Center at EDC canhelp you find the tools you need to create gender-fair multicultural learning environments.

Call the Center’s hotline at 800-225-3088 orTTY 800-354-6798 for resources and referrals.

The Center’s website is full of excitinginformation and tools, from fun facts about thehistory of equality to a list of practical curriculadesigned to help make any subject gender-fair. TheCenter’s website was designed to be accessible tousers with disabilities.

www.edc.org/WomensEquity

EDEQUITY (the Educational Equity Discus-sion List) is designed to encourage discussionabout international theory and practice. Tosubscribe, send e-mail to <[email protected]>. The subject should be left blank and thebody of the message should read:

subscribe edequity

Expectations and beliefs in children’s potential to learn play a major role in assessment and outcomes. These resources,selected from our extensive collection, can help improve classroom systems, interactions, and outcomes for all students.They offer opportunities to infuse the experiences and perspectives of different groups of students and their families into theexisting curriculum and to infuse equity concepts into all levels of school operation.

A-Gay-YahAn exciting, multicultural social studies or history curricu-lum for grades 6 to 12, A-Gay-Yah emphasizes critical think-ing and cooperative learning, increases gender equity andcultural awareness, and uses the context of American In-dian history and culture to examine gender roles.•ByWathene Young (178 pp.) 1992•#2735•$30.00

Add-Ventures for GirlsBuilding Math ConfidenceDeveloped with and field-tested by classroom teachers, thiscollection of fun, hands-on activities address teacher-stu-dent interaction patters, girls’ learning styles, and the im-portance of parent involvement to help teachers create anenvironment that engages elementary and middle schoolgirls in math.•By Dr. Margaret FranklinElementary (292 pp.)•#2709•$39.00Middle School (347 pp.)•#2710•$42.00

Checklists for Counteracting Race and SexBias in Educational MaterialsFor more than 15 years, this easy-to-use handbook hashelped educators and families evaluate materials for gen-der and race bias, a first step to improving instructionalmaterials.•By Martha P. Cotera (43 pp.) 1982•#2042•$6.00

Going PlacesAn Enrichment Program to Empower StudentsDropout prevention that focuses on empowering studentsto be engaged learners can make the difference, as shownby this model, developed and field-tested by San DiegoSchools. Outlining a flexible 18-week curriculum targetingmiddle and high school students most at risk, Going Placesfocuses on enrichment and hands-on, cooperative learning;develops and builds self-esteem; improves problem-solvingand decision-making skills; and develops leadershipskills.•By San Diego City Schools (433 pp.) 1991•#2713•$50.00

Raising the GradeA Title IX Curriculum

The latest release from the WEEA Equity Resource Center,for K–12 classrooms, after-school programs, and commu-nity groups. Building an effective classroom for all girlsand boys is the first step toward increasing student achieve-ment. Move toward the Improving America’s Schools Actgoals, and help your students celebrate 25 years of grow-ing gender equity in education. Raising the Grade is a col-lection of fun and interesting activities that will strengthensixth through twelfth graders’ abilities to work togethereffectively across the diversity of gender, race, national ori-gin, and disability. Designed to be used throughout thelearning period, on its own, as part of a thematic unit, oracross the curriculum, Raising the Grade will help studentsrecognize that they can take action to make gender equitya reality in all areas of their lives.•By the WEEA EquityResource Center (174 pp.) 1998•#2810•$17.00

A Road Well TraveledThree Generations of Cuban American WomenThrough stories and family photos, 12 Cuban women of-fer readers a view of their experiences, strengths, andachievements. The first anthology of its kind, it is the per-fect tool to build understanding and respect. Useful for highschool and college courses.•By Terry Doran, JanetSatterfield, and Chris Stade (162 pp.) 1988•#2683•$21.00

Sisters in the BloodThe Education of Women in Native AmericaThis landmark book examines the educational situation,in all its intricacies, for American Indian girls and women.Based on interviews with nearly 1,000 women, it placesthe experience of American Indian women in the largercontext of U.S. education, looks at the origins of racism andstereotyping, explores possible solutions to the critical drop-out problem, and offers recommendations to policymakersand educators. Sisters is of critical importance to improv-ing education for both American Indian and all students.A must for anyone committed to making schools work forall students.•By Dr. Ardy Clarke (354 pp.) 1993•#2743•$23.50

New!




Becauseauthenticassessment iscontinuous, itis integral toas opposed todivorced frominstruction;teaching andassessmentbecomeseamless,simultaneousprocesses.


also offers insight into girls’ ways of knowing.11

This literature suggests that girls respond morepositively to classroom environments that en-courage cooperation and collaboration over thecompetition, individualism, and objectivity thatmore typically define classroom culture. Re-search into girls’ sense of fairness and moralityposits that girls are more likely to be sensitiveto the needs of others, while other studies haveindicated that girls are more likely to respondto adults and to seek out interactions with them.The idea of “field sensitivity” has also been as-sociated with females and with children ofcolor,13 and translates into a learning style thatis responsive to modeling, group work, and per-sonal connections with content.

Ways of knowing notwithstanding, teach-ers would be unwise to rush to categorize chil-dren according to learning-style preference orto use these theories as rigid indicators of howculturally diverse children learn, because muchof what we know remains inconclusive anduntested.14 Rather, the lesson teachers can andshould take from this body of literature is theidea that children do learn and perceive theworld in dissimilar ways. Therefore, meetingthe instructional and personal needs of diverselearners demands that teachers create more in-clusive classroom cultures that embrace mul-tiple ways of knowing. When children are notforced to “enter school having to unlearn or, atleast, to modify their own culturally sanctionedinteractional and behavioral styles and adoptthose styles rewarded in the school context ifthey wish to achieve academic success,”15 theyare allowed to apply all of themselves to theeducational enterprise, to bring all that theyknow to learning. Authentic assessment, whenviewed as a way of coming to know what a per-son thinks, feels, knows, and is able to do, canbe used as a mechanism for revealing childrenand uncovering their capacities.

Authentic assessments16 are often describedas more meaningful and comprehensive mea-sures of what learners know and are able to do.Unlike standardized tests that are efficient,norm-referenced instruments that separatelearning from testing and require learners toproduce distinct and correct answers on cue,17

authentic assessments are characterized by con-tinuous observations of learning, depth and

breadth of response, cycles of revision and re-finement, students’ engagement in self-assess-ment, and connections between what is beingassessed and real-world issues and questions.18

Standardized testing has a long history of dis-advantaging girls and youngsters who are pooror are members of visible racial/ethnic groups.19

Thus, there is a great deal of optimistic antici-pation, even in the face of scant evidence, thatassessments that represent alternatives to tra-ditional multiple-choice testing can bring aboutmore equitable educational outcomes for girlsand children of color20 because they enableteachers to tailor instruction to learners andtruly meet their needs.

Authentic Assessment as a Journeytoward Transformative TeachingTwo basic assumptions underlie this discussionabout authentic assessment. First, assessmentis authentic when it is continuous, cyclical, andembedded in the classroom curriculum. Sec-ond, because authentic assessment is continuous,it is integral to as opposed to divorced from in-struction; teaching and assessment become seam-less, simultaneous processes. Rather than anevent such as testing, which happens at the con-clusion of instruction apart from the curriculum,authentic assessment is an ongoing process thatsupports and informs teaching and learning.Authentic assessments engage students in prob-lem-solving and problem posing; are groundedin meaningful, “real-life” tasks; provide multipleforms of evidence about student learning; offerstudents numerous opportunities for self-reflec-tion and revision; present varied paths to learn-ing by encouraging the utilization of many mo-dalities and strategies; support children’s bestwork by rendering criteria and standards explicit;allow children to make connections betweenhome and school and to integrate different sub-ject areas or concepts; emphasize growth and de-velopment over time; and value the learning pro-cess as well as the product.21 Authentic assess-ments require that teachers change the way theythink about knowledge, instruction, and aca-demic success, because achievement is no longerdefined as getting the single right answer, doingthings in a certain way, delivering isolated facts,or demonstrating particular competencies ondemand.

5


March 2000

Additional ResourcesAchieving Gender EquityStrategies for the ClassroomThis book offers strategies teachers can use to modify theirown classroom teaching, as well as tips for parents. Amongthe topics addressed, the concept of self-assessment is in-troduced as a key challenge for women and girls; practicalapproaches are included as well.•Dianne D. Horgan (1995).Allyn and Bacon, 160 Gould Street, Needham Heights, MA02194•800-666-9433•ISBN: 020515459X•Web: vig.abacon.com

ASSESS (Assessing Sex Equity in Schoolsand Society)A useful handbook of checklists, surveys, and questionnairesdesigned to help evaluate equity within schools.•MichiganCenter for Career and Technical Education, 230 EricksonHall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI48824•800-292-1606.

Assessment Alternatives for DiverseClassroomsThis volume takes a comprehensive look at assessment inthe classroom as it affects students of color, women andgirls, students with disabilities, and students of varied so-cioeconomic classes. Beginning with a brief history of as-sessment from the inception of IQ testing, this book out-lines the bias inherent in the assessment process andpractical approaches toward making evaluation more ac-cessible for all students.•Edited by Beverly P. Farr and EliseTrumbull (1997). Norwood, MA: Christopher-GordonPublishers•ISBN: 092684251X.

Assessment for Equity and InclusionEmbracing All Our ChildrenA collection of essays on the importance of equity in as-sessment, including case studies, examples, and strategiesfor implementing authentic assessment in the classroom.•Edited by A. Lin Goodwin (1997). Routledge, 29 West 35th

Street, New York, NY 10001•800-634-7064•Web:www.routledge-ny.com

Assessment Standards for SchoolMathematicsGuide for examining current assessment practices andplanning new assessment systems. Shows how to assessstudent performance by using new approaches to deter-mine students’ progress and achievement of goals. Presentssix assessment standards that address mathematics, learn-ing, equity, openness, inferences, and coherence.•NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics, 1906 AssociationDrive, Reston, Virginia 20191-1593•800-235-7566•ISBN:0873534190•Web: www.nctm.org

Enriching Content Classes for SecondaryESOL StudentsA practical handbook for designing, adapting, and imple-menting appropriate curricula and authentic assessmentfor English-language learners, this book includes check-lists, student activities, and classroom ideas that can be ap-plied directly and easily.•Judith H. Jameson (1998). Cen-ter for Applied Linguistics, Sunbelt Office and DeltaSystems Co., Inc., McHenry, IL•ISBN: 1887744142•Web:delta.kksbb.com

New Standards Reference ExaminationsRepresenting a new and exciting way to measure studentachievement, performance standards indicate what stu-dents should be able to do at different points in their edu-cational careers. After establishing performance standards,educators design an assessment to determine how well stu-dents have learned the tasks, concepts, and skills describedby those standards. The New Standards Reference Examina-tions system includes reference examinations in mathemat-ics and English language arts. Includes a mix of traditionaltests and performance tasks that ask students to use theirknowledge to solve complex problems. Spanish version isavailable for the mathematics component.•Harcourt BraceEducational Measurement•800-211-8378•Web: www.hbem.com

Performance-Based Student AssessmentChallenges and PossibilitiesThis is Part 1 of the 95th Yearbook of the National Society forthe Study of Education. This collection of essays discussesthe need to accurately assess students’ abilities while al-lowing for differences in what students know and how theylearn. Addresses the intellectual, technical, and political is-sues of reforming education assessment to accommodatetoday’s diverse classrooms. The essays include insightgained in several pilot-tested assessment systems, as wellas designs for new systems to assess aptitude andachievement.•Edited by Joan Boykoff Baron and DenniePalmer Wolf (1996). The University of Chicago Press, 5801South Ellis, Chicago, IL 60637•773-702-7700•ISBN:0226038033•Web: www.press.uchicago.edu

Sex Equity in Educational Opportunity,Achievement, and TestingProceedings of the 1991 ETS Invitational ConferenceExcerpts of presentations given at the 1991 ETS Proceed-ings on measurement and evaluation. Features commen-taries by national equity leaders on a wide range of topicsin standardized assessment, from gender gaps in verbal andmathematics ability to the school and career experiences.•Educational Testing Service (1992), Rosedale Road, Princeton,NJ 08541•609-921-9000•e-mail: [email protected]•ISBN:0886851289•Web: www.ets.org

TIMSSThird International Mathematics and Science StudyThe largest study of comparative educational achievementever undertaken, the TIMSS study compares mathematicsand science achievement of students in 41 countries at fivegrade levels—the third, fourth, seventh, eighth grades, andfinal year of secondary school. Includes charts and com-parisons by gender. Housed at Boston College, all reportsare available free on-line.•TIMSS International Study Cen-ter (1993-99), Champion Hall 323, Boston College, Chest-nut Hill, MA 02167•Web: www.csteep.bc.edu/timss



Whenteacherslearn to seechildrendifferently—as able andwilling tolearn—theirteaching istransformed.


Assessment that is authentic looks carefullyat children in order to come to know them, theirneeds, and their dreams. Observing and assess-ing students closely give teachers the preciouscues and clues they need to create learning en-vironments that invite all learners in and allowthem to build their senses of themselves as pow-erful, capable, and cared-for human beings.When teachers strive to learn as much aboutstudents as possible and provide students withmultiple entry points to learning, they definetheir role as providing the supports and struc-tures necessary to help children see themselvesas learners who are in control of the learningprocess. Much has been written about differ-ent kinds of authentic assessments—portfolios,performances, demonstrations, exhibitions.These are all worthwhile activities that enablestudents to reveal what they know in numer-ous ways. However, in the absence of deepknowledge of students, these activities will behollow. Thus, what is most critical for teachersto understand when working with children ingeneral, and diverse learners in particular, isthat “assessment is an attitude before it is amethod.”22 Authentic assessment begins withteachers making it their business to purpose-fully watch, listen to, talk with, and think aboutthe children in their classrooms. By observing,recording, informally monitoring, conferencingwith, and interviewing their students, teachersinitiate an ongoing process that uncovers wholearners are and what they know, and leads toopportunities for teachers and children to buildshared meaning and beliefs. But it is more thansimply gathering data about children; it is al-lowing children to get inside you so that youcan never look at them in ways other than themost caring and positive.

When children’s capacities are uncoveredand they are revealed to be multifaceted learn-ers, teachers’ conceptions of them are naturallychallenged. When teachers learn to see childrendifferently—as able and willing to learn—theirteaching is transformed. Stories of teachingtransformations reveal the power of teachers’expectations and assumptions and how firmlyentrenched is the sorting and classifying func-tion of schools. Steve Ellwood began his teach-ing career as a “technician” who saw trackingas “normative and sensible” and defined his“role in assessment [as] grounded in the prac-

tical need to assign a grade for each student inmath and science.”23 As his conception of as-sessment began to change from “a labeling andsorting tool” to “a starting point for workingwith students,” he began to teach differentlyto students he now perceived differently. Hestarted to group students heterogeneously, toencourage students to work together, to seeknowledge as complex rather than discreet andsequential. By defining “assessment as empow-erment: sketches of progress to build upon,”24

he and his students challenged the prevailingnorm in his school—that students from poorand working class-neighborhoods seldommade it into the elite subjects, specifically alge-bra, that serve as gatekeepers for college entry.

When Julie Savitch and Leslie Serling de-cided to team-teach their two respectiveclasses—one designated “gifted,” the other“regular”—little did they realize that their con-ceptions of giftedness would be dramaticallyaltered. Informed by Gardner’s theory of mul-tiple intelligence,25 they began to understand“that education is not merely to sort out a fewchildren and make them the leaders, but todevelop the latent talents of the entire popula-tion in diverse ways.”26 As their “lens for as-sessment assumed a broader view,” they wereguided “to see and think about students’growth in different ways.”27 Employing coop-erative groups, thematic curricula, long-termprojects, a variety of instructional strategies,and authentic assessments such as portfolios,Savitch and Sterling invited every student intothe learning process and “created a new defi-nition of giftedness—one that includes every-body.”28 As a consequence of coming to knowtheir students’ gifts, all their students experi-enced success, including the many childrenwho were from immigrant families and spokea language other than English, who had previ-ously been categorized as “nongifted.”

Paula “grew up with great misconceptionsconcerning what mathematics was about andwhat it meant to be good at math.”29 Despiteher success in mathematics, she “never felt [she]had the right to call [herself] a math star,” a la-bel she felt was reserved for those who scored“not high, but highest, on tests.”30 As a teacherof mathematics who understood “that the num-ber of Americans who enjoy math and feel they


7


March 2000

do it well is alarmingly small, and that the pre-ponderance of those are not women and mi-norities,”31 she sought to build children’s un-derstanding and enjoyment of mathematics.Rather than thinking of math as close-endedand objective, she emphasized imagination,personal relevance, and patterns; came to seemath as “more art than arithmetic”; and worked“to subordinate teaching to learning.”32 ForPaula, “assessment was almost indistinguish-able from practice” and “at report card time[she] sent home narratives describing how eachchild worked, what her style was, whatstrengths she relied on.”33 In her story, she de-fines assessment in mathematics as enablingchildren to think and do through building andconcrete demonstrations; imagining and ex-trapolating from actual to imagined situations;writing creatively in order to encourage chil-dren to both reflect on their learning and gen-erate knowledge; and sharing—talking togetherabout mathematics. She advises other teachers,particularly those who aim to teach math

to be ready to plan and assess mathematicalactivity not through the demands of a stan-dardized test but by looking at what childrenactually do when they think about math andwhat they say about what they do. By honor-ing in their teaching and their assessing, themultiplicity of ways that children talk andthink and explain their math, teachers will berehumanizing the discipline.34

A Final Word on AuthenticAssessmentThese portraits of practice enable us to see thatteachers who engage in authentic assessmentbelieve that different ways of knowing are nur-tured and supported by diverse methodologies,a wide range of activities, differentiated instruc-tion, deep caring for the uniqueness of eachchild, and the creation of an inviting classroomfamily.35 Each of the teachers previously intro-duced assumes that children possess muchknowledge; each sees the purpose of instruc-tion and assessment as first supporting learn-ers to reveal what they know and then guidingthem to compare, relate, or apply what theyknow to new information and experiences; andeach is determined to educate every child. Eachworks to enable his or her students to demon-strate knowing in a variety of ways and resists

relying unduly on single modes of expressionto the exclusion of other means. Through theirexperiences, we see that authentic assessmentis dependent upon a deep belief in children’sinherent capacity to learn and achieve academicsuccess, and a strong obligation to ensure edu-cational equity for and access to all children—girls and boys, poor children, children of color.

If schools and educators subscribe to defi-cit views of children and their families and at-tribute learners’ shortcomings to gender, race,or class, they fail to be accountable for the aca-demic progress and development of all chil-dren. Much has been written about teacher ex-pectations and the detrimental effect that lowor inappropriate expectations can have on stu-dent achievement.36 Indeed, a growing body ofliterature describes the relationship betweenteacher beliefs, assumptions, attitudes, and pre-conceptions and teacher behavior.37 This litera-ture tells us that teachers’ belief in children’spotential to learn and worthiness has a bearingon the quality of instruction children receive.Authentic assessment and practice are possibleonly when teachers believe that children whoare culturally and linguistically diverse can andmust learn, and are fully capable and will ben-efit from instruction that is meaningful and richwith powerful ideas. Too often, children areblamed for their own failures or locked intoteachers’ assumptions about what they can andcannot accomplish. Teachers can and will findmany convenient reasons for children’s lack ofsuccess unless they look closely and criticallyat themselves, scrutinize their own practices,and abide by the assumption that if childrenare not learning, then the teachers are the oneswho must do something differently. This is noteasy and requires “a very special kind of lis-tening, listening that requires not only openeyes and ears, but open hearts and minds. Wedo not really see through our eyes or hearthrough our ears, but through our beliefs.”38 ✦

Notes1. In this article, I use the term of color to denote those in-

dividuals who are African American, Asian American,Latino, and Native American, or who are not of Euro-pean American descent, even while I acknowledge thatall human beings are, in actuality, people of color.

2. See for example, American Association of UniversityWomen (AAUW), How Schools Shortchange Girls. (Wash-ington, DC: American Association of University Womenand National Education Association, 1992). College



Teachers whoengage inauthenticassessmentbelieve thatdifferent waysof knowingare nurturedand supportedby diversemethodologies,a wide rangeof activities,differentiatedinstruction,deep caringfor theuniqueness ofeach child,and thecreation of aninvitingclassroomfamily.





Board, Equality and Excellence: The Educational Status ofBlack Americans (New York: College Board, 1985). L. Dar-ling-Hammond, “Inequality and Access to Knowledge.”In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Handbook of Research on MulticulturalEducation (New York: Macmillan, 1995): 465–483. D. Pol-lard, “Gender and Achievement.” In S. K. Biklen andD. Pollard (Eds.), Gender and Education: Ninety-secondYearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993): 90–106.

3. L. Delpit, Other People’s Children (New York: New Press,1995). A. L. Goodwin, (Ed.), Assessment for Equity and In-clusion: Embracing All Our Children (New York: Routledge,1997a). J. J. Irvine, Black Students and School Failure (NewYork: Praeger, 1991). G. Ladson-Billings, The Dreamkeepers(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994). S. Nieto, Affirm-ing Diversity (New York: Longman, 1992). V. O. Pangand L. L. Cheng, Struggling to Be Heard: The Unmet Needsof Asian Pacific American Children (Albany, NY: SUNYPress, 1998). P. G. Ramsey, Teaching and Learning in a Di-verse World (New York: Teachers College Press, 1987).

4. A. L. Goodwin, “The Social/Political Construction ofLow Teacher Expectations for Children of Color: HowCan We Learn to See with Different Eyes?” In S. H. King(Ed.), The Thought and Practice of Anti-Racist Teaching(New York: Routledge, forthcoming).

5. R. T. Carter and A. L. Goodwin, “Racial Identity andEducation.” In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Re-search in Education, Vol. 20 (Washington, DC: AmericanEducational Research Association, 1994): 319.

6. R. Dunn and S. A. Griggs, “Research on the LearningStyle Characteristics of Selected Racial and EthnicGroups.” Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Dis-abilities International, 6, (1990): 261–280. G. Gay, “Cul-turally Diverse Students and Social Studies.” In J. P.Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Social Studies Edu-cation (New York: Macmillan, 1991): 144–156. J. J. Irvine,Black Students and School Failure (New York: Praeger,1991). B. J. Shade, “Afro-American Cognitive Style: AVariable in School Success?” Review of Educational Re-search, 52, (1982): 219–244.

7. T. Huber and C. Pewewardy, “Maximizing Learning forAll Students: A Review of Literature on Learning Mo-dalities, Cognitive Styles, and Approaches to Meetingthe Needs of Diverse Learners” (1990). (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, No. ED 324 289.)

8. J. Cummins, “Empowering Minority Students: A Frame-work for Intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1986): 18–36.

9. S. Nieto, Affirming Diversity (New York: Longman, 1992).10. J. J. Irvine, Black Students and School Failure (New York:

Praeger, 1991).11. R. T. Carter and A. L. Goodwin, “Racial Identity and

Education.” In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Re-search in Education, Vol. 20 (Washington, DC: AmericanEducational Research Association, 1994): 319.

12. American Association of University Women (AAUW),How Schools Shortchange Girls (Washington, DC: Ameri-can Association of University Women and National Edu-cation Association, 1992). C. Gilligan, In a Different Voice:Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

13. H. Grossman and S. H. Grossman, Gender Issues in Edu-cation (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1994). M. Ramirez III and

A. Castaneda, Cultural Democracy, Bicognitive Develop-ment, and Education (New York: Academic Press, 1974).

14. R. T. Carter and A. L. Goodwin, “Racial Identity andEducation.” In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Re-search in Education, Vol. 20 (Washington, DC: AmericanEducational Research Association, 1994): 291–336. G.Ladson-Billings, “Culturally Relevant Teaching: TheKey to Making Multicultural Education Work.” In C.A. Grant (Ed.), Research and Multicultural Education (Lon-don: Falmer, 1992): 106–121.

15. S. Fordham, “Racelessness as a Factor in Black Students’School Success: Pragmatic Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory?”Harvard Educational Review, 58 (1988): 55.

16. This article uses the term authentic assessment to gener-ally depict holistic assessments that are embedded inclassroom contexts and enable children to demonstratelearning by integrating and applying knowledge andskills to real-world tasks. However, it is important to ac-knowledge that a variety of terms exist in the literaturethat are either used interchangeably with or are presentedas examples of authentic assessment. These include per-formance assessment, alternative assessment, portfolio assess-ment, naturalistic assessment, situated assessment, dynamicassessment, curriculum-embedded assessment, and assessmentby exhibition (Garcia & Pearson, 1994).

17. G. P. Wiggins, Assessing Student Performance. (San Fran-cisco: Jossey Bass, 1993).

18. L. Einbender and D. Wood, An Authentic Journey: Teach-ers’ Emergent Understandings about Authentic Assessmentand Practice (New York: National Center for Restructur-ing Education, Schools, and Teaching, 1995).

19. American Association of University Women (AAUW),How Schools Shortchange Girls. (Washington, DC: Ameri-can Association of University Women and NationalEducation Association, 1992). G. E. Garcia and P. D.Pearson, “Assessment and Diversity.” In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 20(Washington, DC: American Educational Research As-sociation 1994): 337–392. S. J. Gould, The Mismeasure ofMan (New York: Norton, 1981). J. Oakes, Keeping Track:How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, 1985).

20. E. W. Gordon and C. Bonilla-Bowman, “Can Perfor-mance-Based Assessments Contribute to the Achieve-ment of Educational Equity?” In J. B. Baron and D. P.Wolf (Eds.), Performance-Based Student Assessment: Chal-lenges and Possibilities (Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the NationalSociety for the Study of Education, Part I, Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, 1996): 32–51.

21. L. Darling-Hammond and B. Falk, “Supporting Teach-ing and Learning for All Students: Policies for Authen-tic Assessment Systems.” In A. L. Goodwin, (Ed.), As-sessment for Equity and Inclusion: Embracing All Our Chil-dren (New York: Routledge,1997): 51–76. C. Genishi,“Assessing against the Grain: A Conceptual Frameworkfor Alternative Assessments.” In A. L. Goodwin, (Ed.).Assessment for Equity and Inclusion: Embracing All OurChildren (New York: Routledge, 1997): 35–50. Y. Smithand A. L. Goodwin, “The Democratic, Child-centeredClassroom: Provisioning for a Vision.” In A. L. Goodwin(Ed.), Assessment for Equity and Inclusion: Embracing AllOur Children (New York: Routledge, 1997): 101–120.

9


March 2000

22. E. Chittenden, “Authentic Assessment, Evaluation, andDocumentation.” In V. Perrone (Ed.), Expanding StudentAssessment (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development, 1991): 29.

23. S. C. Ellwood IV, “The Power of Possibilities.” In A. L.Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment for Equity and Inclusion: Embrac-ing All Our Children (New York: Routledge, 1997): 77–100.

24. Ibid, p. 8525. H. Gardner, Frames of Mind (New York: Basic Books, 1983).26. Winn, 1990 cited in J. H. Savitch & L. A. Serling, “I

Wouldn’t Know I Was Smart If I Didn’t Come to thisClass.” In A. L. Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment for Equity andInclusion: Embracing All Our Children (New York:Routledge, 1997): 141–162.

27. Ibid, p. 15528. Ibid, p. 15929. P. Hajar, “Awakening to the Mathematician Within: One

Teacher’s Story.” In A. L. Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment forEquity and Inclusion: Embracing All Our Children (NewYork: Routledge, 1997): 121–140.

30. Ibid, p. 12331. Ibid, p. 12332. Ibid, p. 124


33. Ibid, p. 13434. Ibid, p. 13835. W. W. Purkey and J. M. Novak, Inviting School Success

(2nd ed.). (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1984).36. J. L. Brophy and T. L. Good, “Teacher Behavior and Stu-

dent Achievement.” In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbookof Research on Teaching (3rd ed.). (New York: Macmillan,1986): 328–375. T. L. Good and J. Brophy, Looking in Class-rooms (3rd. ed.). (New York: Harper & Row, 1984). J. J.Irvine, Black Students and School Failure (New York:Praeger, 1991).

37. C. M. Clark and P. L. Peterson, “Teachers’ Thought Pro-cesses.” In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research onTeaching (3rd ed.). (New York: Macmillan, 1986): 255–296. A. L. Goodwin, “Historical and Contemporary Per-spectives on Multicultural Teacher Education: Past Les-sons, New Directions.” In J. King, E. R. Hollins and W.Hayman (Eds.), Meeting the Challenge of Diversity inTeacher Preparation (New York: Teachers College Press,1997b): 5–22. F. A. Rios, Teacher Thinking in Cultural Con-texts (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1996).

38. L. Delpit, Other People’s Children (New York: New Press,1995): 46.

The College Board45 Columbus AvenueNew York, NY 10023-6992Phone: 212-713-8000Web: www.collegeboard.org

Council of Chief State School OfficersOne Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20001Phone: 202-408-5505Web: www.ccsso.org

Educational Testing ServiceRosedale RoadPrinceton, NJ 08541 USAPhone: 609-921-9000E-mail: [email protected]: www.ets.org

ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation1131 Shriver Laboratory (Bldg 075)University of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742Phone: 301-405-7449 or 800-464-3742E-mail: [email protected]: www.ericae.net

Learning Through Evaluation, Adaptation, andDissemination (LEAD) Center1402 University Ave.Madison, WI 53706Phone: 608-265-5943E-mail: [email protected]: www.cae.wisc.edu/~lead

The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest)342 BroadwayCambridge, MA 02139Phone: 617-864-4810E-mail: [email protected]: www.fairtest.org

National Center for Improving Student Learning andAchievement in Mathematics and ScienceWisconsin Center for Education ResearchSchool of EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison1025 W. Johnson StreetMadison, WI 53706Phone: 608-263-3605Web: www.wcer.wisc.edu/ncisla

National Center for Research and Evaluation, Standards,and Student TestingUCLA Center for the Study of EvaluationCSE/CRESST301 GSE&IS Mailbox 951522Los Angeles, CA 90095Phone: 310-206-1532Web: www.cse.ucla.edu

Northwest Regional Educational LaboratoryAssessment and Evaluation Program101 SW Main, Suite 500Portland, OR 97204Phone: 503-275-9500Web: www.nwrel.org/eval

Resource Organizations for Assessment

10


Education Assessment

Academic Accountability . . . continued

Every state inthe nationmust addressthis issue byJuly 2000,when thefederalreportingrequirementstake effect.

Continued p. 11, “Academic Accountability”

ability for academic progress while meetingindividual student needs. The question forstates and localities then becomes, What alter-nate assessments are appropriate and how are we todevelop them in ways that meet the enormous di-versity represented within these two special-needspopulations? Every state in the nation must ad-dress this issue by July 2000, when the federalreporting requirements take effect. The ap-proaches we see may be almost as varied as thenumber of states in the Union. Wisconsin’s an-swer is a complex response that attempts tomeet the spirit of the legislation, the needs ofthese students, and the tradition of local con-trol and autonomy that is carefully guarded inthis Midwest state.

Creating a FrameworkThe key component of Wisconsin’s approachis the state’s framework for classroom-based,alternative assessment for students who can-not meaningfully participate, even with allow-able accommodations, in the regular assess-ment program. The framework is aligned withWisconsin’s model academic standards, whichdescribe what students should know and beable to do by grades 4, 8, and 12. These stan-dards include broad content objectives followedby several more focused performance bench-marks for progress in the four academic sub-ject areas of social studies, language arts, math,and science. To create the framework, the Wis-consin Department of Public Instruction calledtogether educators from around the state to thecapital, Madison, in summer 1998 to developAlternate Performance Indicators (APIs). APIs areobservable, measurable indicators of progresstoward meeting particular content and perfor-mance standards. The APIs assist teachers whowork with students with disabilities or LEP inaccessing the state’s academic standards byproviding examples of concrete progress indi-cators and practical assessment activities.

The educators who developed APIs werefirst grouped separately by their specialty ofworking with either students with disabilitiesor LEP. Once in these groups, the teams werefurther divided into the four academic contentareas. Their charge was to consider the specialneeds of the students they taught while review-ing each performance standard, writing be-tween one and three APIs for each performance

standard. They then wrote one or two sampleperformance activities to give teachers ideas ofhow to structure classroom assessments di-rected toward the APIs. The groups used anorganizational chart with four columns undereach content standard. The left-hand columnlisted the corresponding performance stan-dards, followed by a column for the draft APIs,then the sample draft activities/tasks, and fi-nally a blank column that provides teacherswith space to document their sources of assess-ment data (e.g., work samples, direct observa-tion, review of records, tests).4 To accompanythe APIs, alternative assessment guidebooksdetailing their appropriate use were developed.The guidebook for teachers of students withLEP demonstrates how to design and use APIs,including numerous examples of how to imple-ment performance-based classroom assess-ments. It also assists educators in creating as-sessment rubrics, interpreting data, measuringgains over time, and reporting results at thelocal level. The guidebook for teachers of stu-dents with disabilities includes extensive infor-mation on using testing accommodations. Bothguidebooks will be used as the foundationaltexts in professional development sessions thathave already begun in Wisconsin.

The guidebooks also provide suggestionsfor how schools can report student progress inalternative assessment locally to parents andthe community. Students taking alternative as-sessment are included in statewide reports,along with students participating in standard-ized assessments. In this way, all students withdisabilities and LEP “count” in building per-formance reports and thus cannot “disappear”from the accountability equation. While theexpectation for students with LEP is that alter-native assessment is a temporary need whileEnglish skills develop, students with severedisabilities may participate in alternative as-sessment as long as the Individualized Educa-tional Plan (IEP) Committee deems such par-ticipation appropriate.5

Advantages of the AlternativeAssessment FrameworkA standards-based, alternative assessmentframework assists teachers in planning lessonsand assessments aligned with the same high

11


March 2000

Academic Accountability . . . continued

Wisconsincan nowsay that allstudents areincluded andthat allstudentscount.

Notes1. While many prefer to call these students English-lan-

guage learners, I use students with Limited English Pro-ficiency (LEP), as this is still the term used in federaland state legislation.

2. D. August and K. Hakuta, (Eds.) Improving Schooling forLanguage-Minority Children: A Research Agenda (NationalResearch Council, Washington, DC: National AcademyPress, 1997). L. M. McDonnell, M. J. McLaughlin and P.Morrison, (Eds.) Educating One and All: Students WithDisabilities and Standards-Based Reform (National Re-search Council, Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress, 1997). J. Olsen and A. Goldstein, The Inclusion OfStudents With Disabilities And Limited English ProficientStudents In Large-Scale Assessments: A Summary Of Re-cent Progress (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education,Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1997).

3. Examples of commonly used testing accommodationsinclude taking the test with additional time, in separatetesting locations, with additional breaks, with dictio-naries or other educational aids, and in large-print orBraille editions.

4. API Taskforce (in press), Alternate Performance Indicatorsfor Limited English Proficient Students. Madison, WI: Wis-consin Department of Public Instruction. Also, samplein Assessment section of www.edc.org/WomensEquity.

5. Stephen Elliott (in press), Educational Assessment and Ac-countability for All Students: Facilitating the MeaningfulParticipation of Students With Disabilities in District andStatewide Assessment Programs. Madison, WI: WisconsinDepartment of Public Instruction. M. Gottlieb (in press).Standards-Based Alternate Assessment for Limited EnglishProficient Students: A Guide for Wisconsin Educators. Madi-son, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

6. M. LaCelle-Peterson and C. Rivera, “Is It Real for AllKids? A framework for equitable assessment policies forEnglish language learners.” Harvard Educational Review,64(1), (1994): 55–75. D. August and K. Hakuta, (Eds.)Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A Re-search Agenda (National Research Council, Washington,DC: National Academy Press, 1997). L.M. McDonnell,M.J. McLaughlin and P. Morrison, (Eds.) Educating One& All: Students With Disabilities And Standards-Based Re-form (National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Academy Press, 1997). J. Olsen and A. Goldstein,The Inclusion of Students With Disabilities and Limited En-glish Proficient Students in Large-Scale Assessments: A Sum-mary of Recent Progress (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. ofEducation, Office of Educational Research and Improve-ment, 1997).

7. S. Messick, “The Interplay of Evidence and Conse-quences in the Validation of Performance Assessments.”Educational Researcher, 23(2), (1994): 13–23. J. Olsen andA. Goldstein, The Inclusion of Students With Disabilitiesand Limited English Proficient Students in Large-Scale As-sessments: A Summary of Recent Progress (Washington,DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Re-search and Improvement, 1997).

standards other students must meet. This align-ment between standards-based curricula, in-struction, and assessment is particularly impor-tant for a group of students who have oftenbeen denied access to quality academic content.In this sense, the APIs serve as much as a cur-riculum and instructional planning guide asthey do an assessment framework. APIs pro-mote multiple ways of assessing LEP studentperformance that are authentic and take placeover time. This is congruent with the best-prac-tice recommendations for the assessment ofspecial-needs students.6 Content validity is highwith APIs, as they are directly linked to thesame academic standards other students arelearning. Few if any high stakes (e.g., retention-in-grade, graduation) are attached to perfor-mance on APIs, and so the issue of negativeconsequences from the test is less a concern.7

Teachers within academic support pro-grams have traditionally experienced difficultyin moving beyond separate, remedial curricula.APIs offer teachers of students with disabilitiesand LEP a local framework within which theyare encouraged to align their curricula, instruc-tion, and assessment with challenging contentand performance standards from the very be-ginning. This should enable support programsto accelerate the rate at which these studentsclose the academic gap.

While I would not want to give the impres-sion that the alternative assessment frameworkwill resolve all the difficulties inherent in teach-ing such a diverse group of students, it is a sig-nificant step forward. With the development ofa standards-based, alternative assessment sys-tem, local schools now have a tool for curricu-lum alignment and a continuum of assessmentoptions within which to include all students,even those with minimal English proficiencyor cognitive disabilities. This continuum movesfrom full participation in large-scale assess-ment, through participation with varying test-ing accommodations, to, for a small percentageof eligible students, participation in classroom-based, standards-referenced alternative assess-ments. Wisconsin can now say that all studentsare included and that all students count. ✦

12 Education Assessment

Nonprofit OrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDBoston, MA

Permit No. 58241

© 2000 WEEA Equity Resource Center at EDCThe WEEA Digest is published by WEEA Equity Resource Center,a project at Education Development Center, Inc., under contract#ED–98–CO–0008 from the U.S. Department of Education.Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the positionof the U.S. Department of Education and no official endorsementshould be inferred.

WEEA is the Women’s Educational Equity Act: federal legislationto promote educational equity for girls and women.

Katherine Hanson, Senior Project Director

Julia Potter, Managing Editor

Sundra Flansburg, Project Coordinator

Susan J. Smith, Director of Technical Assistance

Paula Fleming, Marketing Communications Director

Susan Carter, Information Specialist

Ambika Kapur, Research Assistant

Cynthia Newson, Administrative Assistant

Ronnie DiComo, Production Assistant

WEEA Equity Resource CenterEducation Development Center, Inc.55 Chapel Street, D-0300Newton, MA 02458-1060617-969-7100 • 800-225-3088TTY: 800-354-6798Fax: 617-332-4318E-mail: [email protected]/WomensEquity

The verystudents mostin need ofaccountabilityandeducationalreforms areoften left out.

Continued p. 10, “Academic Accountability”

Academic Accountability for Studentswith Disabilities and LEPBy Tim Boals, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Traditionally, many students with disabilitiesand LEP have been excluded from large-scaleacademic assessments on the grounds thatthose assessments were inappropriate and thusinequitable. While many researchers and prac-titioners still voice concerns about overrelianceon these assessments, increasingly educatorshave come to believe that exclusion from large-scale assessments has more drawbacks thanbenefits. Since, for better or worse, large-scaleassessments constitute a central piece of schoolaccountability, the very students most in needof accountability and educational reforms areoften left out of the equation if they are not as-sessed for academic progress.2 Recent federallegislation, the Improving America’s SchoolsAct (IASA) of 1994, and the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) as amendedin 1997, sought to address this issue by requir-

ing states and localities to include all studentsin state and local reporting of academic assess-ment results. In this new era of increased account-ability, all students, and the schools and programsthat serve them, must meet clearly defined, stan-dards-referenced criteria for learning.

Under IASA and IDEA, it is no longer suffi-cient to report that a child was exempted fromacademic assessments. Nonetheless, the legisla-tion also recognizes that, for a small percentageof students with disabilities or LEP, large-scaleassessments, even with testing accommodations,3

will not provide an opportunity for students todemonstrate what they know and are able to do.The legislation states that for these students, al-ternate assessments must be developed andimplemented to provide the required account-

honoring ways of knowing

Documents