Within higher education literature, constructive alignment theory begins from a simple but transformative premise: meaningful assessment must align directly with intended learning outcomes and prior teaching. Students are not passive recipients of information but active constructors of meaning, and assessments ought to capture that process. Yet neurodiversity complicates assumptions about how students demonstrate learning. An autistic student who thrives in written communication may struggle with oral presentations. A dyslexic student may engage deeply in class discussion yet receive lower marks on traditional written exams. In these cases, the misalignment lies not with the teacher’s instruction or the student’s learning, but with singular assessment design.