Journal article
Rejecting Test Surveillance in Higher Education
Michigan State Law Review, Vol.2022, p675
2022
Abstract
The rise of remote proctoring software during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the dangers of surveillance-reliant pedagogy built on the belief that students can't be trusted. These services, which deploy a range of identification protocols, computer and internet access limitations, and human or automated observation of students as they take tests remotely, are marketed as necessary to prevent cheating. But the success of these services in their stated goal is ill-supported at best and discredited at worst, particularly given their highly over-inclusive criteria for "suspicious" behavior. Meanwhile, the harms they inflict on students are clear: severe anxiety among test-takers, concerning data collection and use practices, and discriminatory flagging of students of color and students with disabilities have provoked widespread outcry from students, professors, privacy advocates, policymakers, and sometimes universities themselves. To make matters worse, the privacy and civil rights laws most relevant to the use of these services are generally inadequate to protect students from the harms they inflict.
Colleges and universities routinely face difficult decisions that require reconciling conflicting interests, but whether to use remote proctoring software isn't one of them. Remote proctoring software is not pedagogically beneficial, institutionally necessary, or remotely unavoidable, and its use further entrenches inequities in higher education that schools should be devoted to rooting out. Colleges and universities should abandon remote proctoring software, and apply the lessons from this failed experiment to their other existing or potential future uses of surveillance technologies and automated decision-making systems that threaten students' privacy, access to important life opportunities, and intellectual freedom.
Metrics
1 Record Views
Details
- Title
- Rejecting Test Surveillance in Higher Education
- Creators
- Lindsey Barrett - Drexel University, Thomas R. Kline School of Law
- Publication Details
- Michigan State Law Review, Vol.2022, p675
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Academic Unit
- Thomas R. Kline School of Law
- Identifiers
- 991021893507004721