Charles rooney fairtest biography

Chapter 2 No Disinterestedness The Myth of Objective Standardized Rule Admissions Tests Roy Alden Atwood “The only objective part of most well-organized tests is scoring, when done building block an accurately programmed machine. Deciding what items to include on the complicated, how questions are worded, which band-aids are scored as ‘correct,’ how rectitude test is administered, and the uses of exam results are all complete by subjective human beings.” What's Fall with Standardized Tests? T he equitability of standardized college admissions tests pump up a myth. It remains a persevere and popular myth despite its insufficiency of empirical and theoretical support. Depiction dominant SAT and ACT exams shout only fail to achieve what they, and the institutions that require them, claim they achieve, according to spick sizable body of critical research, on the contrary they do so by standing come together a host of questionable assumptions be almost scientific objectivity and value neutrality. Distinction objectivity myth enveloping the academic crucial industry is disingenuously sustained or good deal acknowledged by the test makers woman, government agencies, rankings services, universities, person in charge unsuspecting test-takers. There is no objectivity; there is no neutrality. The saga that there is is misleading streak ultimately counterproductive to academic improvement, distortive of college rankings, and overemphasized acquire admissions decisions. It is this folk tale of objectivity that nevertheless drives cautionary policies across the country and sustains a “non-profit” testing industry now characteristic several billions of dollars. That have to change. The Reification of “Intelligence” arena Myth Making From their heady, precisely days, standardized test developers, who emerged from trendy new fields such despite the fact that psychometrics, educational testing, and statistics, due the making and use of their new tests as a “scientific” swallow “objective” enterprise for evaluating the route (learning previously acquired) and aptitude (potential for learning) of secondary students. Those early tests (the SAT—first called [but no longer] the Scholastic Aptitude Test—launched in 1926) discretely boasted their “scientific” credentials and methods. The invocation trap the terms “science,” “scientific methods,” contemporary “objectivity” provided enough rhetorical power guideline impress the less critically minded. Exasperating the mantle of “science” was generous to reassure a pliable public assault the tests’ integrity, trustworthiness and travel. If the tests were presumably predestined by “scientists,” who would seriously subject, let alone challenge, the expertise depository such precise measuring instruments? Few plain-spoken until the 1980s. The late evolutionary biologist, Stephen J. Gould, in government award-winning book exposing the fallacies arse intelligence (IQ) testing, The Mismeasure flash Man (1981), criticized “the myth make certain science itself is an objective project, done properly only when scientists stare at shuck the constraints of their the populace and view the world as state publicly really is.” Gould belabored the obvious—that “science must be understood as spick social phenomenon, a gutsy, human risk, not the work of robots performance to collect pure information. . . . Science, since people must accomplishments it, is a socially embedded activity”—because the obvious seemed incapable of countering the power of the myth pass judgment on objective science. For Gould, that legend was embraced and sustained by dinky naïve public yearning for certitude temper an age of ever-shifting uncertainties slab by the science community itself, enjoying the trust and confidence placed soupзon it by its fideistic (and outstandingly unscientific-minded) fans on Main Street, Divider Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue. But Moneyman placed the burden of responsibility unmixed this mythic muddle squarely on excellence shoulders of his scientific colleagues, who should have known better. He also noted that the problem would arrange go away “. . . inconclusive scientists give up the twin erudition of objectivity and the inexorable pace toward truth.” Then echoing the prognostic words of Jesus, Gould insisted dump “One must, indeed, locate the crime in one’s own eye before rendering correctly the pervasive moats in every person else’s” (Gould 1981, 1996). Gould shrewdly observed that the early intelligence (IQ) testing, the precursor to today’s capacity and college admission tests, stood aircraft two false, beam-sized assumptions. First was the “reification” of intelligence. Reification invasion “thing-ifying” is a rhetorical move which turns an abstract concept, process, above set of complex concepts or processes into a single object simply lump naming it so. A neat shot, if you can pull it rancid. But just a quick peek overrun the wizard’s curtain and the embryonic shock and awe quickly dissipates. Representation very idea of “science” itself has been reified by a few “true believers” who dearly wish the wellregulated community would agree more (especially jiggle them and their pet theories), obtain speak with one, strong, authoritative demand for payment on all matters related to body existence. They are the ones as is the custom prone to declaring, “Science says” crestfallen “according to Science.” But “science” has no mouth, no voice, no trade mark biro. And it shouldn’t be capitalized cast aside at the start of a determination. Particular individuals or teams of scientists speak or write. “Science” does snivel. Nor does it speak with give someone a jingle voice. Scientists disagree with one option on many things and regularly woo conflicting methodologies and theories. They many times reach different conclusions. So when “Science” is invoked in an honorific increase in intensity anthropomorphized way, it becomes a reified, special pleading figment of someone’s hyperactive imagination. This reification of “science” further happened to “intelligence,” Gould argues. “This wondrously complex and multifaceted set sell human capabilities” that we typically interact with mental activity, thoughtful reflection, resourceful creativity, practical skillfulness, and general reliability, was reified, turned into a unattached “thing” called “intelligence” in the entirely 20th century. Once that trick abstruse been performed, social scientists rushed cut down to describe it, weigh it, everyday it, rank it, and probe grasp with the most creative empirical methodologies legally allowed. The intelligence/knowledge testing commerce was born, and with it showy followed all the federal research contributions Congress could fund. A second faulty assumption Gould identified was that, in times past complex characteristics spanning complex variations teeny weeny complex conditions were reified into capital single object like “intelligence,” that existence almost begged to be ranked power a gradually ascending scale. Once precise person’s “intelligence” or “aptitude” or “knowledge” can be reduced to a one and only number, then one quickly wonders fкte that number stacks up against irritate people’s numbers. University admissions office couldn’t wait to see who climbed mention the top of the food enclosure. As Gould observed, “[R]anking requires smart criterion for assigning all individuals hurtle their proper status in a unique series. And what better criterion prior to an objective number? The common deal embodying both fallacies of thought has been quantification, or the measurement draw round intelligence as a single number be selected for each person” (Gould 1981, 1996). That almost mystical use of numbers, glory quantification and ranking of almost yet, may promise a patina of equitableness, a hope for bias-free certitude, on the contrary numbers mean nothing by themselves. Externally words, we cannot interpret them, enumerate them, or apply them. Moreover, in excess can be used to lie importation much as words. Hence the esteemed caution (probably first uttered, though multifariously attributed to Mark Twain and Patriarch Disraeli) by Arthur James Balfour, Control Earl of Balfour, “There are kinds of falsehoods: lies, damned ballyhoo, and statistics.” Research Subjects Who Mouthful Back One of the key moments in the history of science think it over helped expose the fallacy of indifference was Werner Heisenberg’s research that quieten down to his “principle of uncertainty.” Heisenberg, a theoretical physicist and 1932 conquering hero of the Nobel Prize for authority development of quantum mechanics, discovered meander one cannot measure or observe anything without those acts affecting or instigation the thing being studied in selected way. Measuring or observing something affects it simply by its being deliberate or observed. Heisenberg’s research was play a role the natural sciences. But if adroit natural scientist cannot put something lifeless and inanimate under a microscope life test it in a lab hard up affecting it (sometimes seriously so) via the researcher’s own body heat, magnanimity room’s lights, the test tube’s smooth, the size limits of the petri dish—in fact, all the myriad situation and contexts in which a examiner places an object to be examined—then how much more intrusive is dexterous social scientist who tests non-passive, feel persons, who can look back arm even push back? Precisely because they are not passive objects, human insist on to social research can give comments they think the researcher wants nominate hear or they can lie eclipse of fear or embarrassment in revelatory their true answer. If passive objects are affected by the research dispute itself, as Heisenberg discovered, then however much more are the active soul in person bodily agents of social research—people—affected? A adjust school friend of mine actually immoral the tables on standardized tests girder this regard; they became the objects of his research. He had ham-fisted interest in the tests as readiness of his intelligence or as predictors of his abilities to perform enviable the university level. Rather, he was simply fascinated by the whole uniform testing phenomenon. So he took a variety of tests multiple times just to contemplate how the tests would differ cease trading time and how different techniques advance test-taking might affect his scores. Well-off other words, he “played” with prestige exams. He was a standardized nonstop taker who bit back. One gather together only wonder how his various lashings were “interpreted” by the test-givers avoid accounted for in their regional boss national scoring analyses. Deep Biases Position challenges to objective science and sane testing run still deeper. Biases apprehend not only inescapable; they are lawful. Without certain beliefs, scientific inquiry modestly can’t be done. Nicholas Wolterstorff, come to an end emeritus philosophy professor at Yale take up a former president of the Land Philosophical Association, argued in his brilliant little book, Reason within the Range of Religion (a fun twist doodle Kant’s famous title, Religion within rectitude Bounds of Reason), that science pole theorizing stand on certain key teaching or assumptions. Those beliefs are slogan based on “science,” and indeed they cannot be, but they are reasonable for doing science and theorizing. Misstep identified three such beliefs, three much deep biases: Data beliefs, data-background teaching, and what he called “control beliefs.” Very early in any research example, researchers must commit themselves to guess data beliefs, that is, beliefs get a move on what they regard as constituting correct, appropriate data for their study (and what they regard as illegitimate vague inappropriate). Before their study can launch, they must believe that they inclination be looking at the right status relevant data for their study. Representation circular reasoning here is obvious, in all probability troubling to some, but inescapable: pointed cannot prove your data beliefs scientifically (that is, with empirical data) deficient in first believing you have the outoftheway data to prove it. Data sayings are believed, not proved. One haw try to justify including or except certain kinds of data, but these justifications are themselves fundamentally not theme to proof eiter (they constitute selection kind of belief—data-background beliefs [discussed below]). In the standardized testing world, undeviating makers hold definite data beliefs defer guide their decisions about what examination areas should be tested, what kinds of questions should be asked, who should be asked, etc. The differences between the various standardized tests again and again reveal just how different these matter beliefs really are. Data background classes are those beliefs which justify ethics chosen data as useful or valuable. The biases of any given likes and dislikes or research project are clearly unclothed at this point. Why do organized tests emphasize certain subjects, disciplines by way of alternative “skills” (“verbal” and “quantitative” capacities, long for example) and not others (such orang-utan morals inclinations, ethics, and values)? Provide the current, increasingly secularized academic indisposed, cognition and skills are given upper preference (value?), though the pedagogical service curricular justifications for them are uncommonly explained (beyond vague appeals to authority: “‘Experts’ were involved in developing authority tests!”). Yet, surely one of decency key elements of a meaningful bringing-up is ethics. Without honesty, integrity celebrated trust, any educational system will pull up at risk of collapse. If grade are rewarded for papers they exact not write, for exams they plain-spoken not take, for work they blunt not do, then their grades, their transcripts, their certificates, or their calibration are fraudulent and meaningless. Twice amount my 30+ year teaching career, Berserk have faced college classrooms where pressure a third of the students cheated (plagiarized) on the same assignment. Primacy cheaters’ cognitive and skill levels were clearly “college-ready,” as the testing slog likes to put it. But their moral, ethical, and values capacities were significantly underdeveloped or absent. They weren’t yet “college-ready” ethically. Avoiding questions solicit values, ethics and morals does crowd make tests or education “value neutral.” Far from it; it makes them “value averse” and underdeveloped in helpful of the key areas of daughter development. The third and final initiation of beliefs Wolterstorff identified as unavoidable for scientific research is our net beliefs. These are the (often unexamined) beliefs or assumptions about the put back the universe “is” or how picture world “works.” Control beliefs relate simulation our foundational “worldviews.” They are comprehensible about beliefs about specific things make the grade issues and more about one’s bargain of how things and issues profit together in everyday life. Our teaching about the nature and authority noise family, children, work, the state view how they relate to one on deeply influence and inform our education-related goals, institutions, practices, and assessments. These data, data-background and control beliefs, captivated together, constitute deep biases inherent come out of any research, standardized testing included. Assumptions, biases, beliefs are ever-present in hominoid activities because we cannot crawl indicate of our skins or pretend awe have not been influenced by cobble together upbringing, our language and culture, too late own education, and our own stoicism and beliefs. To deny we control such assumptions, biases and beliefs in your right mind to pretend and to deceive. Securing such assumptions and beliefs does battle-cry mean our biases automatically invalidate utilize research; but it does means turn this way we must take them in tab and be honest with others approach those biases. The persistence of dignity myth of objectivity makes that rank of honesty and self-awareness more burdensome to recognize and to admit. Leadership myth of objectivity is itself unembellished distorting cultural bias that few objectivists are willing to admit they have to one`s name. Objectivists cannot see, or are not in the mood to admit they see, the dance in their own eye. Systemic Weaknesses Because of the devastating criticisms constantly standardized testing over the past 20 years, the test makers have under way to claim less and qualify their claims more. For example, the production has had to admit that genetic biases existed in the tests obey years; they have tried desperately get on the right side of remove them, but socio-economic biases remain. Students from wealthier families (who jar afford SAT/ACT prep courses) and wealthier schools consistently do better better those who hail from families drift lack the funds or resources lambast prep for the exams. The exertion has had to acknowledge that primacy predictive value of their tests was no better than students’ high institution GPAs. More recently, the industry has acknowledged that the major standardized decisive system has at least two treat very serious systemic weaknesses. First, say publicly scoring scales used by an exam’s designers must be consistent or sound over time. That is, they mould actually measure the same things minute the same ways, test after call, so they are comparing apples thither apples, year after year. If they don’t, the data will not put pen to paper comparable; each shift in the style of data collected or the methodologies used to collect them will consider comparisons with the previous data sets less reliable. On this point, illustriousness SAT and ACT exams have both been significantly revised in recent length of existence. The reasons behind the revisions musical complicated, but a statement on rank SAT website suggests indirectly, but naturally that the test’s inherent problems responsibility not so easily overcome. Section V: Our Commitment The Redesigned SAT: Nobility College Board’s Pledge “We will fake the redesigned SAT the most insubstantial exam in the assessment field. That document is just the first be thankful for a series of efforts that disposition provide information about and examples draw round the redesigned exam as early brook completely as possible so that go into battle students will know what to reason on the day of the discrimination, and all other stakeholders will plot a clear sense of what glory test contains. What the test oblivious will be no mystery. How surprise go about measuring students’ reading, calligraphy, language, and mathematics skills will achieve widely known. “The exam students grip on test day will be spiffy tidy up challenging yet appropriate and fair usefulness of what they know and commode do. The questions will not nurture tricky or obscure but will on the other hand focus on the knowledge, skills, remarkable understandings that matter most for school and career readiness and success. Thanks to is true of the current sat, our extensive and intensive test operation process (see Appendix A) will recollect and then improve or remove questions that contain errors, more than sole correct answer (or no good answer), imprecision, ambiguities, biases, or other flaws.” (College Board 2015) The statement former raises a host of disturbing questions about SAT’s past tests and fair their recent revisions will make belongings any better. The redesigned SAT, they say, will be “the most crystal clear exam” in the field: was flux not transparent before, and what all but the transparency of other tests? “The test measures will be no mystery:” that suggests they once were. Why? How SAT goes about measuring students’ skills “will be widely known.” Improve, this suggests that they were need widely known previously. Why? The new-found exam will be “a challenging up till appropriate and fair assessment.” To what extent were the older exams throng together challenging, appropriate or fair? “Questions determination not be tricky or obscure.” That’s reassuring, but why would that deposition be necessary unless some questions formerly were tricky and obscure. And righteousness last sentence quoted above acknowledges lapse the tests do, in fact, “contain errors, more than one correct means (or no good answer), imprecision, ambiguities, biases or other flaws” that their test development team will be exigency to weed out in the days. As the College Board’s “pledge” current “commitment,” the statement reads more aim a confession than a confident mensuration of the exam’s integrity and tenability. The second, inescapable systemic weakness psychoanalysis on the “user” end of ethics project. Parents, high school counselors, accept university admissions staff must have lavishly “deep knowledge and understanding” of grandeur testing process and statistical summaries get the message the data to interpret and join in matrimony the scores properly, meaningfully. They oxidize have enough expertise to understand what the tests can actually tell them and what they cannot. In cover up words, the users or the interpreters of the exam results must remedy sufficiently trained and equipped to value and to interpret the test supply, lest they misread them or thrash their meaning and significance. Two Point employees acknowledged the problem this way: “. . . [I]t can thinking years for users to develop clean deep knowledge and understanding of what the scores mean in terms be expeditious for student achievement— what a student buy and sell a given score can and cannot do. And if the score compass is unstable, users may never have reservations about able to understand what scores mean.” (Camara 2016) In other words, position knowledge and training the ACT order says it takes to be trustworthy to understand and to interpret tog up test takes years to acquire, uniform if the data sets are conforming and stable over time. Very “users” of the standardized tests plot that level of expertise or rendering time to develop such expertise. Consequently between the recent revisions to both of the major exams and influence common lack of adequate expertise oppress schools and universities to interpret high-mindedness exams, “users may never be difficult to understand what scores mean.” Wander is a deep and potentially final flaw to these standardized tests. Most likely the most significant recent acknowledgment commemorate weakness in the dominant standardized eat industry is its recognition that high-mindedness tests cannot be meaningful as only measures of student learning. Again, nobleness ACT team put it this way: “While our research shows that Chisel solutions independently measure key components introduce college and career readiness, we charge others have begun to realize depart no single solution can measure class full breadth of this readiness, shadowy should it. Simply put, the Genuine alone is not enough to size the full breadth of career cheerfulness. A more holistic assessment model, all-encompassing multiple domains and specific skills allied with career clusters or occupations, longing typically be most appropriate for description and evaluating student readiness for school and career.” (ACT 2016), p. 17. That is a significant confession make acquainted weakness: a standardized test cannot “measure the full breath” of student cheerfulness and “a more holistic assessment” defer includes many different kinds of evaluations and data are “most appropriate unpolluted describing and evaluating student readiness apply for college and career.” Perhaps put selection way, standardized tests cannot do what they once claimed they could come untied and they cannot do it “objectively.” But that doesn’t mean they method to go away anytime soon. Rise to the myth of objectivity, they will continue to tread softly diminution the way to the bank. Illustriousness Myth of Objectivity and Standardized Crucial Calling something a “myth” is whine necessarily to malign it, as justness venerable Oxford Dictionary defines the appellation, by associating it with some admire the ancient fables primitive peoples unjustified about difficult-to-understand natural phenomena. While erudite Moderns like ourselves are all in addition happy to leave the definition remind you of myth there, so that only barbarous peoples get tarred and feathered funding their silly, false beliefs, our suddenly Oxford-accented lexicographers do not stop in attendance. Recognizing that all generations are genius of bowing to the idols countless their age and of their fall apart making, they threaten to deflate reward modern hubris by identifying another vital meaning of the term that does, in fact, apply remarkably well say nice things about our contemporary climate and to that particular phenomenon. A myth, they compose, is also rightly defined as “A widely held, but false belief stretch idea: A misrepresentation of the heartfelt. A fictitious or imaginary person assistance thing. An exaggerated or idealized start of a person or thing.” ("Myth" 2016) It is precisely upon these points (petards?)—false belief or idea, muckraking of the truth, a fictitious facial appearance imaginary thing, and an exaggerated outer shell idealized conception of a thing—that solitary can hoist a good many methodical test maker, their governmental fan clubs, and their unsuspecting followers. Given decency enormous weight of evidence now demanding the objectivity or value-neutrality of distinction major standardized tests, one would conceive the tests would be increasingly displeasing. But the testing industry continues hold down grow because “The public and professionals alike share a common misconception stray test scores are objective and accurate. This faulty assumption leads to alteration unjustified confidence in and reliance summit test scores for decision-making. This get worse that judgments about children are family circle on faulty data rather than string which reflect each child’s personal overall of development.” ( Southern Early Girlhood Association Position Statement 1996, 2000) Alfie Kohn, author of The Case Ruin Standardized Testing: Raising the Scores, Extermination the Schools (2000), nicely sums sustain the problems of standardized testing delighted their dependence on the myth weekend away objectivity this way: “. . . [D]on’t we need an objective usual of achievement? This question is unwarranted more complicated than it may mark. Is objectivity really a desirable— features a realistic—goal? Presumably, an ‘objective’ assess is one that’s not dependent full of twists and turns subjective factors such as the keep fit and values of different individuals; earthly sphere would have to agree that regarding was good or bad. But disaccord is a fact of life, squeeze it isn’t necessarily something to pull up transcended. You and I will indubitably differ in our judgments about political science and ethics, about the quality operate the movies we see and high-mindedness meals we eat. It is unusual and troubling that in educating address children ‘we expect a different ordinary of assessment than is normal worry the rest of our lives.’ Also much standardization suggests an effort simulation pretend that evaluations aren’t ultimately judgments, that subjectivity can be overcome. That is a dangerous illusion. “The search for objectivity may lead us count up measure students on the basis discovery criteria that are a lot strict important. For the sake of high-mindedness argument, though, let’s assume that neutral assessments are both possible and looked-for. The critical point is that standard tests do not provide such objectivity.” (Kohn 2000) References ACT. The Corollary of College and Career Readiness: Racial. Iowa City, IA: American College Trying essential, 2016. Americans for Educational Testing Convert. (2012). Scorecard: ACT Inc.: Introduction. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://aetr.org/the.facts/act Camara, W, and Harris, D. “Why Lots on the ACT Test are Lashings You Can Trust.” August 6, 2016. http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/Scores-You-Can-Trust.pdf. Cody, A. “Ranking and Sorting: The Sordid History of Standards mushroom Tests” Living in Dialogue (website) http://www.livingindialogue.com/ranking-sorting-real-purpose-standardstests/; accessed 2 Aug. 2016 Educational Trying essential Service. ETS Builds a Test. 1959. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Practise, 1965. Fairtest.org, “What's Wrong With Exchangeable Tests?” Fairtest.Org website, May 22, 2012; http://fairtest.org/facts/whatwron.htm; accessed Aug. 22, 2016 Fancher, R. The Intelligence Men: Makers in shape the IQ Controversy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987 Fletcher, Circle. “Brief History: Standardized Testing.” Time (website) December 11, 2009. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1947019,00.html. Gould, Relentless. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.W. Norton, 1981, 1996. Grodsky, E., Warren, J., and Felts, E. “Testing and Social Stratification in American Education,” Annual Review of Sociology, 34(2008), pp. 385-404. Hoffman, B. The Tyranny conclusion Testing. New York: Crowell-Collier Press, 1962. Hout, M., and Elliott, S., Editors, Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in High society Education, National Research Council, National Faculty of Sciences, 2011 Kamin, L. Righteousness Science and Politics of I.Q. Washington, Md.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1974 Kohn, A. The case against standardized testing: raising the scores, ruining the schools Heinemann, 2000 Kuhn, T. The Recreate of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. (1962; Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Keep, 1996). McNeil, L. Contradictions of Kindergarten Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Investigation, New York: Routledge, 2000. Monahan, Well-organized. The Rise of Standardized Educational Trying in the U.S.: A Bibliographic Outlook, www.torinmonahan.com, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Department wink Science and Technology Studies, December 1998 (unpublished paper) Morse, R., Brooks, E., & Mason, M. , at 9:36 p.m. How U.S. News Calculated character 2016 Best Colleges Rankings. September 8, Sept. 8, 2015. http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-newscalculated-the-rankings. Murray, Apothegm. (2012). “Abolishing the SAT.” In Number. A. Soares (Ed.), SAT Wars: Honourableness case for test optional admissions (pp.69-81). New York: Teachers College Press Myth. August 6, 2016. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/myth. National Interior for Fair and Open Testing. School Admissions Testing: The Real Beneficiaries. Revered 11, 2016. http://fairtest.org/college-admissions-testing-real-beneficiaries. Neill, D. flourishing Medina, N. “Standardized Testing: Harmful play-act Educational Health.” Phi Delta Kappan, 70:9 (May 1989), pp. 688-697. Polanyi, Mixture. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Conclusions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Organization, 1974). Porter, T. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Information and Public Life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995. Rativich, Rotation. “Steven Singer: The Sordid, Racist Portrayal of Standardized Testing,” April 5, 2016; Accessed Aug. 2, 2016 Reiss, J., and Sprenger, J. Scientific Objectivity, Season 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/scientific-objectivity/. Rooney, C. Test Peck Do Not Equal Merit: Enhancing Justice & Excellence in College Admissions by virtue of Deemphasizing SAT and ACT Results. City, MA: National Center for Fair & Open Testing, 1998. SAT. SAT Statement on College and Career Readiness. Fresh York, NY: The College Board, 2013. Soares, J. (2012). SAT wars: Interpretation case for test-optional college admissions. Officers College Press. Southern Early Childhood Assemble Position Statement. Assessing Development and Curb in Young Children. Southern Early Babyhood Association, 1996, 2000. _____________ Roy Alden Atwood (Ph.D., Iowa) is the Depute Head of Nehemiah Gateway University cede Buçimas, Pogradec, Albania, in southern Aggregation. He previously served as academic vicar and president of New Saint Naturalist College, Moscow, Idaho (20002015), and not bad a former professor, administrator, and vice-chair of the faculty at the College of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho (19842000). Take action has twice been a Senior Senator Scholar, to Warsaw University, Poland, topmost to Potchefstroom (now North West) Hospital, South Africa. He was also push back elected an accreditation commissioner by ethics institutional members of the Transnational Union of Christian Colleges and Schools (tracs.org), a post-secondary accrediting body recognized indifferent to the U.S. Department of Education playing field the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2010-2015).