Remote proctoring has to work for everyone.
Article six in The Proctoring Question series.
The last article looked at why candidate experience is part of assessment quality. This one looks at a related question: whether every candidate, wherever they are, gets comparable conditions once they log in.
One of the most common assumptions in remote assessment is that widening access automatically creates equity.
It doesn’t.
For candidates who live in rural areas or in countries without an established test-centre network, or who have specific access needs, remote delivery can be the difference between participation and exclusion. In recent years, remote proctoring has been central to our ambitions to widen access. And it has undoubtedly done that.
But equity begins after the candidate logs in. So, how can we maintain and extend access within a remote model, whilst also ensuring that model remains defensible, inclusive and trustworthy?
What equity requires after login
If a candidate can get in front of a laptop, log in and sit the exam, we have ticked that box, haven’t we? But access only tells us whether a candidate can reach the assessment. An assessment only becomes equitable if, once candidates have logged in, they can complete it without encountering barriers that others do not.
Comparability is about far more than providing a login to a proctoring platform, and the growing digital divide extends far beyond whether someone has an internet connection. We need to consider:
- Access to a suitable device
- The reliability and speed of the internet connection
- Geographical restrictions on internet access and use
- Suitability of the assessment space being used
- The candidate’s technical confidence and competence within a digital environment
- Whether there is a suitable level of proctor and assessment support available to meet the candidate’s needs
Genuine equity means that we have to look beyond access alone to ensure that once access has been granted, everyone can walk in, sit down and be presented with the same barrier-free opportunity to complete the assessment.
Anyone who has delivered across multiple countries knows that a global delivery model often means uneven infrastructure and widely different assessment environments. Whilst high-speed internet and personal laptops are the norm in some regions, in others connectivity is fragile, data is expensive and devices are old. And that is before we factor in power cuts, network congestion, local restrictions and time zone differences, which can all disrupt delivery.
A candidate in a major European city and a candidate in a rural area with patchy coverage may both technically have internet access. Yet that tells us almost nothing about whether they are experiencing comparable assessment conditions. Language, cultural norms and local regulations also shape how proctoring is perceived and experienced.
Without considering all of these details, we risk creating a two-tier global system: one tier where remote exams are genuinely flexible and empowering, and another where they are technically available but practically precarious. Equity means designing remote models that recognise these differences, rather than assuming a single global template will work everywhere.
Remote, centre or both
It has been well documented that some large organisations have reconsidered remote exams for certain high-stakes contexts, driven by concerns about security, fairness or regulatory pressure. In some cases, returning to in-centre delivery for specific cohorts may be exactly the right decision. But we have to be careful that removing remotely proctored assessments does not quickly turn into the default safety move.
If we remove remote options, the people most impacted will be the ones who most benefit from the opportunity: people in remote areas, those with caring responsibilities, those with mobility or health challenges and those in countries where test-centre networks are limited. Instead, we should establish where remote delivery remains essential for equity, and what we need to do to make that access both equitable and defensible.
Equity and access cannot be achieved through remote delivery alone. Colleges, local universities, training providers and even employer premises continue to play an important role, particularly where home environments are unsuitable or where local infrastructure cannot support high-stakes remote delivery. For some candidates, a local centre or partner venue may be the best option available: a place with stable connectivity, appropriate equipment and an environment that meets minimum standards.
What is important is that we avoid assuming that “centre-based” always means large, centralised venues in major cities. Smaller, distributed centres, or partnerships with local institutions, can provide an invaluable bridge between remote policy and local reality.
We need to distinguish between assessments that genuinely require centre-based control, those that can remain remote with appropriate safeguards, and those where candidates should be able to choose the route that best meets their circumstances. Where centre delivery is required, we also need a viable route for candidates who cannot reasonably reach one. The goal is not to choose between remote delivery and test centres. It is to give candidates the route that allows them to sit the assessment under conditions that are fair, practical and comparable with everyone else.
Designing for equity
Equity in remote proctoring is not just a matter of good intentions. It depends on concrete design and policy choices. Whilst we cannot solve every structural inequality, we can control most of the key elements:
Minimum technical and environmental standards, realistically defined Setting clear, achievable expectations for devices, connectivity and environment.
Support for infrastructure gaps Considering equipment loans or partnerships with local centres where home environments are not viable.
Flexible but fair scheduling Designing assessment windows that respect time zones and work patterns.
Inclusive policy on reasonable adjustments Embedding reasonable adjustments for candidates with disabilities or other needs into the proctoring model, rather than forcing ad hoc exceptions that depend on individual negotiation.
Careful selection and configuration of proctoring tools Evaluating tools for accessibility, language support and the extent to which they can operate under lower-bandwidth conditions.
Careful selection and oversight of proctors Proctor standards vary dramatically, as do regional expectations and protocols. We need complete confidence in the proctors used, their training and their reliability, because the trust candidates and stakeholders place in the outcome depends on it.
Monitoring equity outcomes, not just participation rates Looking at patterns across regions, socio-economic groups and adjustment categories to see who is disproportionately affected.
These measures do not eliminate all risk of inequity, but they move equity from an aspiration to a set of design decisions that can be explained, audited and improved over time.
A final thought
Remote proctoring has created opportunities that simply did not exist twenty years ago. That is something worth protecting.
But genuine equity isn’t achieved because someone can technically log into an assessment. It is achieved when candidates, wherever they happen to be, are able to demonstrate what they know under conditions that are fair, comparable and proportionate.
Access opens the door. Equity determines whether everyone walks through it on equal terms.
More in this series
The Proctoring Question began with Designing Trust: The Next Chapter of Remote Proctoring, which set out the eight themes that decide whether remote proctoring earns and keeps trust.
Previously: The Candidate Experience Is Part of Assessment Quality on why the conditions candidates sit in can change the evidence they produce.
Next: governance, policy and transparency, and why technology alone cannot guarantee assessment integrity.
If you are working out which assessment need a remote route, a centre route or a choice between them, we are happy to talk it through.
