National Center for Fair & Open Testing

National Center for Fair & Open Testing
Name	National Center for Fair & Open Testing
Abbreviation	FairTest
Formation	1985
Type	Nonprofit advocacy group
Headquarters	United States
Leader title	Executive Director

National Center for Fair & Open Testing

The National Center for Fair & Open Testing is a US-based nonprofit advocacy organization focused on standardized assessment policy, test bias, and alternatives to high-stakes examinations, linked historically to debates involving SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test), ACT (test), No Child Left Behind Act, Every Student Succeeds Act, College Board, and Educational Testing Service. The organization interacts with policy makers, civil rights groups, and academic researchers including contacts in American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Harvard University, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, and Teachers College, Columbia University.

History

Founded in 1985 during a period of national debate over standardized testing and affirmative action, the organization emerged amid controversies that included litigation such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and policy shifts like the rise of the Nation at Risk report and the expansion of Title IX. Early campaigns paralleled actions by groups such as LDF (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund), ACLU, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and advocates associated with Bakke decision aftermath, prompting engagements with institutions like the College Board and Educational Testing Service. Over time the organization entered dialogues around large-scale policy instruments including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorizations and the implementation of No Child Left Behind Act, while collaborating with scholars from Harvard Graduate School of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, University of Chicago, and Michigan State University.

Mission and Activities

The organization’s stated mission centers on promoting fair, open, and equitable assessment practices, opposing what it characterizes as discriminatory testing policies advocated by bodies like College Board, ACT, Inc., and ETS. Its activities include advising school districts such as those in Boston, Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles Unified School District on alternatives to entrance exams used by selective institutions including Ivy League colleges and public systems like the University of California admissions, while coordinating with municipal leaders from cities such as San Francisco and Seattle. It provides testimony before legislative bodies including the United States Congress and state legislatures in California, New York (state), and Texas, and partners with organizations such as NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and The Education Trust.

Research and Publications

The organization produces policy briefs, technical critiques, and position papers often drawing on empirical work from researchers at Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Michigan, Princeton University, Yale University, Duke University, Columbia University, Brown University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Chicago, Northwestern University, University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, Berkeley, University of Texas at Austin, University of Virginia, Johns Hopkins University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, University of Wisconsin–Madison, University of Washington, and Michigan State University. Publications critique psychometric practices used by Educational Testing Service, raise issues connected to landmark legal decisions including Grutter v. Bollinger and Fisher v. University of Texas, and reference standards from bodies such as the National Research Council and American Educational Research Association. The organization’s reports have been cited in academic journals tied to American Educational Research Journal, Educational Researcher, Journal of Higher Education, and policy outlets like The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed.

Advocacy and Campaigns

Campaigns have targeted use of standardized tests in K–12 and higher education admissions, launching local initiatives in districts such as Boston Public Schools, Chicago Public Schools, Los Angeles Unified School District, and statewide efforts in California and Massachusetts. The group has supported test-optional admissions movements at institutions including members of the Association of American Universities and liberal arts colleges in the Council of Independent Colleges, coordinated with advocacy partners like The Education Trust, Public Advocates, ACLU, and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and participated in national coalitions addressing policies shaped by the U.S. Department of Education and federal legislation such as Every Student Succeeds Act. High-profile campaigns coincided with pandemic-era shifts involving COVID-19 pandemic closures and resulting test-optional policies adopted by universities including University of Chicago, Stanford University, Princeton University, Harvard University, and Yale University.

Criticism and Controversies

Critics from organizations including College Board, ACT, Inc., Educational Testing Service, and some higher education leaders in the American Council on Education have challenged the group’s interpretations of psychometrics, arguing against its critiques of score validity and predictive utility used in admissions decisions. Commentators from outlets such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and National Review have debated the group’s positions, and legal scholars referencing cases like Gratz v. Bollinger and Fisher v. University of Texas have contested its policy prescriptions. Some university administrators and faculty associations at institutions including University of California campuses, Boston University, and New York University have criticized the organization for influencing admissions policies in ways they claim affect institutional autonomy and selectivity metrics tracked by organizations such as U.S. News & World Report.

Organizational Structure and Funding

Structured as a nonprofit advocacy and research entity, the organization lists an executive director, board members, and a small staff working across policy, communications, and research functions; board affiliations have included leaders from civil rights groups like NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and education nonprofits such as The Education Trust and Public Advocates. Funding sources have included philanthropic foundations such as Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Heising-Simons Foundation, and regional donors involved in education reform, alongside individual contributions and grants from institutions interested in assessment policy reform. The group has faced transparency inquiries similar to those leveled at other nonprofits operating in policy spheres, prompting disclosures to regulatory bodies including state charity regulators and filings in contexts related to Internal Revenue Service reporting.

Category:Nonprofit organizations based in the United States