Fairness and Equity in Exam Delivery - Insights from eATP 2025
At the European Association of Test Publishers (eATP) conference 2025, a panel organised by TEAMCo addressed the question “Is remote invigilation fair if it’s not for everyone?”, which led to a wide ranging discussion about equity and fairness in exam delivery globally.
The panel brought together perspectives from across the sector:
- Joanne Herman, Business Development Director at TEAMCo (moderator)
- Alison Bell, Head of Growth at TestReach
- Emma Hall, Head of Account Management at Surpass
- Lisa Greenslade, Director of Education Engagement, TEAMCo
Together, they discussed how fairness, global ambition and candidate expectations are reshaping test delivery models - and what this means for awarding bodies and candidates in 2025 and beyond.
Changing Models of Test Delivery
In recent years, test delivery has undergone a profound shift. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of remote invigilation, especially in higher education, and that momentum has left a lasting mark.
Some organisations quickly embraced remote invigilation and continue to use it as their primary channel. Others have adopted a hybrid approach, combining test centres with online delivery, depending on candidate need. As Alison Bell explained:
“At TestReach, we want to continue to offer flexibility at the level of quality the market expects. The sophistication that candidates and awarding bodies now demand is very high.”
The sector has learned that while remote delivery expands access, in some contexts, a candidate-centred hybrid model provides good flexibility.
What Does Fairness Really Mean?
Fairness in assessment was the heart of the debate. For TestReach, fairness is not a single action but a principle that runs through every aspect of exam delivery.
Alison highlighted that TestReach’s mission is “excellence through fairness,” and that this means looking at assessment as an interconnected system:
“We have all the parts of the jigsaw - proctors, system, services - wrapped together. That means we can take a lens of fairness to it, across access, equity and candidate experience.”
Fairness requires robust options. Candidates should not be disadvantaged by bandwidth limitations, disability, or travel costs. Accessibility is therefore a non-negotiable, with TestReach working to WCAG AA 2.2 standards as a baseline.
Emma Hall emphasised the importance of offering comparable options between test centres and remote delivery, while Lisa Greenslade stressed that fairness isn’t just about technology but also about communications and preparation. Candidates need to understand what to expect well before exam day.
Global Ambition and the Role of Partners
Most awarding bodies today have international reach, and this brings fresh challenges around fairness and consistency. Candidates may sit the same qualification in London, Lagos or Singapore - but the delivery experience may differ significantly.
Here, partnerships are vital. System partners can provide secure, scalable platforms, while test centre partners ensure access for those who cannot test remotely. Yet responsibility ultimately rests with the awarding organisation itself.
The panel noted that every global strategy must consider language, cultural nuance and data visibility. Dashboards that track exam delivery by region, and straightforward ways to implement reasonable adjustments at scale, allow awarding bodies to grow internationally without compromising fairness.
The Candidate Experience of the Future
Looking ahead to 2025 and beyond, what does an ideal candidate experience look like?
For some, it’s about thorough preparation: having clear instructions, practice tests and system checks well in advance. For others, it’s about being able to choose a delivery mode that suits their lifestyle and context.
Alison Bell painted a picture of what candidates now expect:
“A frictionless journey, with practice exams, clear onboarding, and a modern user interface. Today’s digital natives expect usability, and they should always feel they can talk to a human, whether that’s a remote proctor or in a test centre.”
This emphasises that candidates may accept strict security controls if they feel supported. For example, at TestReach, having our own proctors, rather than outsourced services, helps ensure clarity, reassurance and consistency.
Lisa Greenslade added that candidates must often take more responsibility for their technical readiness in a remote setting, while Joanne Herman reminded the audience that user experience is key to reducing exam anxiety.
Should All Candidates Have the Right to Choose?
The fairness question becomes sharper when delivery models are only offered to a subset of candidates. Should live remote proctoring be an option for everyone?
Some panellists argued that comparability between test centre and remote delivery is essential. If both modes deliver valid and reliable results, then offering candidates a choice removes barriers and supports fairness. Others highlighted the importance of reasonable adjustments that can be applied dynamically, ensuring candidates do not have to choose between access and equity.
As Alison noted, candidates’ own culture, experience and circumstances shape their preference:
“Rather than having to take time off work to fly somewhere to take a test, candidates are demanding choice. For us, switching between delivery options is as simple as clicking a button.”
Advice for Fair Exam Delivery
Toward the end of the discussion, panellists offered advice for organisations navigating fairness in exam delivery. Several themes stood out:
- Build strong processes that work for the majority, with clear protocols for exceptions, remembering that when you make an exception it will often be expected in future.
- Communicate clearly to candidates about what is possible, and why.
- Respect diversity - cultural, technical, and personal - when designing delivery options.
- Maintain audit trails and consistent oversight, so that quality and fairness are demonstrable.
Alison’s advice underscored the importance of integrity at every level:
“Make sure there are audit trails in the system, and that everyone uses them equitably. Fairness in our own organisations matters, because it underpins fairness in exams. No one loves exams, but knowing it’s a fair outcome for all makes the difference.”
Conclusion: Fairness as a Shared Responsibility
The panel closed on a recognition that fairness is both a principle and a practice. It requires ongoing vigilance - from system providers, test centres, awarding bodies and proctors alike.
Remote invigilation is not fair just because it exists. It becomes fair when candidates are supported, when delivery options are equitable and when processes are transparent and reliable.
For TestReach, fairness is not an afterthought but a guiding mission. As assessment continues to evolve, that mission ensures that candidates worldwide can demonstrate their knowledge and skills on a level playing field.
To read more about TestReach live remote proctoring, visit this page: Remote Proctoring with TestReach
