The article reports on the “revolt” against online proctoring services that are increasingly used to monitor remote testing. In part 1, we recapped how these services work and who has been speaking out against them. In part 2, we will look at how the services can exacerbate inequities in education.
These services make little accommodation for students living with disabilities. This brave new world of online testing has grown so fast that it has not taken into account that disabilities can manifest in behaviors that will flag as suspicious. Proctorio failed an accessibility audit at the University of Colorado Boulder. That school is supposed to arrange an alternative when Proctorio won't work for a student, but how is a test-taker supposed to know which disability-related behaviors will be deemed suspicious? Will it be too late when they're accused of cheating? The National Disabled Law Students Association surveyed online test-takers and found hundreds scared of academic misconduct charges as a result of disability.
The proctoring services also fall flat when it comes to minority students. The Post chronicles how, “Students with dark skin have shined bright lights at their face, worrying the systems wouldn’t recognize them.”
Another alarming feature of the online proctoring services is their opacity. What information are they keeping about students? If asked, what information will they reveal? Proctorio rates test-takers with a secret (from the student) “suspicion level” when a student’s behavior differs from their peers. How long will that “suspicion level” follow a student, and how will it be used? Will it affect college admissions? Employment opportunities? This is on top of the harm even an accusation of cheating can cause a student. Meanwhile, colleges have yet to update their policies to cover suspected online cheating. In the absence of policies tailored for this new testing paradigm, it is a student's right to due process that may suffer. A lack of formal procedures means students are subject to uneven application of standards between teachers and unregulated informal adjudication.
The Post acknowledges that “to defend their integrity, students may have to prove the high-tech cheating detective somehow got it wrong.” But they don't have to do it alone. Joseph Lento is an attorney advisor with experience defending students accused of academic misconduct. If you're facing charges, let him help you ensure your rights. When you're accused of online cheating, it's time to ask questions--don't try to defend yourself; attorney Joseph D. Lento and the Lento Law Firm will take care of that. Ask the administration for the evidence. Find out what platform the school is using and what level/features were in use during the test. Get copies of the school's academic misconduct policy. And call the Lento Law Firm at 888-535-3686.