For one week every spring, classrooms are quiet as children throughout the U.S. take standard achievement tests. You can almost feel the concentration as they read the material and diligently color in the answer circles. There is no sound except the scratch of pencils, the squeak of a chair, or perhaps a sigh or two. When the testing is done, educators have some measurement of what these children have learned.

But what if the child has special needs? What if taking a regular achievement test is not possible? How then do you measure what that child has learned? States across the country have been grappling for some time with how best to offer an alternate assessment.

In South Carolina, the State Department of Education, assisted by its contractor, Measured Progress, took the unusual step of conducting not one but two types of alternate assessment during the past two school years. The goal was to explore all options. Is one of the alternate assessments currently being tried best? Is it a hybrid of both? Or is it something they haven¹t yet found? South Carolina used the portfolio approach with students in Grades 3 through 8, and conducted a performance task assessment at Grade 10. The two are markedly different. With the portfolio approach, teachers compiled a full year’s worth of work from the student. The teacher selected IEP goals and objectives that tied in with standards-based instruction and curriculum standards then taught the student according to those guidelines. Teachers had a lot of flexibility in what to include in the portfolio, as long as they met the guidelines.

The portfolio provided information in two ways. The teacher observed and evaluated the student’s progress and collected evidence through examples of student work. This way, the portfolio provided a very comprehensive overview of what and how the student was learning.

By contrast, the performance task reflected student performance at one point in time. The guidelines defined observable behaviors within specific content areas. The teacher noted that behavior as certain tasks were performed. For example, with English language arts, the tasks might have included reading and answering questions about what has been read. In the mathematics content, tasks may have related to numbers and operations.

Teachers were given a script to follow—exactly—while they conducted the performance task. Scoring was then based on student response.

Scoring was based on what varying levels of assistance were used during the test. For example, the teacher recorded whether the child could do the task without assistance, or with some teacher assistance, or with more teacher assistance, or with hand-over-hand help, and so on. (This method is based on the scaffolding technique that has been used in the Colorado assessment.)

The performance task allowed teachers to adapt materials to meet student needs. It also allowed for the use of assistive technology, if that was what the student normally required. The teachers had greater flexibility in when to administer the test; this type of assessment took much less time than the portfolio. The downside is that the test was still difficult to administer for some of the children who needed to access it. (We need better adaptations for those with the most significant disabilities or sensory impairments.) With the portfolio approach, teachers could design the instruction and make more observations, so for these children, it was easier to document progress.

Chris Beeso, a special education specialist with Measured Progress, worked closely with South Carolina on the two approaches. “It was interesting to get feedback from the teachers doing these assessments,” he says. “The teachers who did the portfolio and then the performance task definitely found the performance task much easier. But the teachers who had only done the performance task found that challenging, so it clearly depends on what your experience is.”

According to Chris, the performance task is gaining momentum. “Measured Progress helped Colorado lead the nation with development of the performance task for children with significant disabilities,” he says. “And now we are assisting Montana to develop a performance task approach. Teachers are given a clear set of guidelines; it’s easier to administer and score; and it’s simply easier to do overall. It is a one-shot deal—once it is done, it is done. The portfolio is more labor-intensive, and it is a year-long project. Some educators have also questioned how portfolios differ from year to year.”

 “However, the performance task is also not the perfect solution,” Chris continues. “Currently, the challenging piece of the performance task is that the teacher must adapt and modify the test to meet individual student needs. In contrast, one of the major benefits of the portfolio is that the teacher has time to make adjustments in instruction so it is easier to meet individual student needs. Both assessments still have quite a few issues of technical adequacy. However, neither has reached its final form. Assessments will continue to evolve and improve. We have to remember that it took years for all the issues associated with the assessments used in regular education to be resolved. If you think of the assessments currently used in regular education as full-grown adults, then the assessments being developed for students in special education are in the toddler stage.”

Feedback from students and parents regarding the two types of assessment reflects the positive aspects of both. We know that parents enjoy the portfolios. They like seeing their child1s work compiled in a binder. Parents are also involved to some extent with the portfolio process, such as making recommendations on what is assessed. With the performance task, they are not as involved but they really like to see reports about the specific skills their children have mastered.

Chris thinks trying more than one option can only lead to good things for the students of any state. “What excites me is looking at more than one approach,” he says. “I like the notion of taking some things from the performance task and some things from the portfolio and meshing the two together. This could be a model for alternate assessments nationwide.”

In order to research the two approaches, Measured Progress authored a proposal that was accepted for a federal grant. Colorado is the lead state on the project that developed performance tasks and instructionally embedded assessments. These assessments will be field tested in the fall of 2004, and the results will be reviewed to see what we can learn from using multiple measures of achievement from different types of assessments.

“These are all excellent approaches,” says Chris. “Everyone wants to do good things for kids, the right things for kids. I like the fact that educators are taking their time and looking at lots of different data and options. Whatever decision they make will be data-driven. With a child-centered focus, they will do what’s best in choosing an assessment.”