Is ACCA right to abandon remote exams?

Accountancy body ACCA are withdrawing remotely invigilated exams, reverting back to test centre delivery, citing an inability to ’police’ exam delivery.

An interview with ACCA’s CEO highlights well-worn sector issues. I admire them for admitting “people who want to do bad things are probably working at a quicker pace”. Making a public stand shows leadership; many others would cower with embarrassment at the potential career-limiting, unilateral withdrawal.

But what signal does this give to the wider assessment community? Bluntly bailing on remote invigilation could appear short-sighted, and smack of panic when faced with on-the-ground realities. Could this decision hold back ACCA’s learner growth? Listening to learners, there’s no singular way that works for everyone.

There are many excellent examples of remote invigilation deployments; a blessing for many under-served learners, who can now access exam sessions. So, it’s not a problem with tech or AI. It’s a problem of supervision. Any worthy assessment or exam must be supervised. 

This isn't a tech or AI problem. It's an exam supervision problem

Trading at £250M with 50% revenue growth in the last 10 years, ACCA should be more than adequately resourced and skilled to manage the subtleties of the markets it serves. It is surprising to read that solution providers seemingly cannot support their needs. This isn’t the first time that sub-optimal solutions have hampered ACCA. 15 years ago, they attempted to partner with Summit Consulting for their computer-based testing - an ill-fated and embarrassing decision for all concerned. Clearly the ‘abandon’ decision wasn’t taken in haste, but was it the right decision? 

Realistically, we should expect a pathway for a controlled, re-introduction of remote invigilation, with service caveats. But how could remotely invigilated exams be re-introduced? Here are five work-streams to make it happen. 

1) Resource a Target Operating Model that reflect security realities The assessment sector is caught in a paradox – delivering defensible, standardised ‘fair’ exams against a pincer movement of escalating accommodation requests and assessment instruments of variable reliability. Better exam owners are moving towards a target operating model with a variety of supervised multi-modal assessment instruments – including the best of digital with AI. It's a pragmatic evolution of their assessment palette, and aids risk mitigation to prevent malpractice. 

Exam owners need a tool bag variety of different assessment instruments

2) (Re)Design qualifications for a diverse candidate community Too often, exam owners fail to have representation from the learners they serve, and the countries in which they live and work. Often, this means a ‘Western’ view of malpractice is very different to that in other countries. Put simply, some cultures expect ‘help’ to facilitate an exam pass, which often-times they are happy to pay for. What a westerner sees as plain cheating, other cultures see as helping a family member to educate themselves out of a poor situation. Qualification design needs to recognise this.

3) Engage constantly and consistently with the e-assessment sector: The sector is genuinely global and rapidly evolving. Exam owners must stay engaged with the debate, not dipping in and out of conferences every two or three years. When exam owners are not actively contributing to progress the debate and sector, it means the boardroom are off-the-pace, and not on top of their brief. 

4) Reject and call out poor service encounters – The sector needs to do a better job in removing clunky service in the name of security. For example, using a laptop camera to security sweep a room remains a poor solution. Instructing a learner to prep their own exam room, rather than turn-up-and-sit-down, is still a big ask. The intrusion upon home intimacy is often an unspoken cultural issue. For example, the acceptance of a second camera for remote delivery, via a smartphone, has only just become accepted practice.

Exam owners should be forthright in rejecting poor service encounters 

5) Explore Digital ID for exam candidates: An emotive topic, but off-the-shelf solutions to validate candidate identity are mainstream and can be integrated with test centre solutions. 

So are ACCA correct for abandoning remote exams? Here are some opposing arguments:

YES Confidence in qualifications is everything. High-stakes at large scale still eludes remote invigilation at the moment. The decision provides breathing room to consider qualification re-design, and a more diverse basket of assessment instruments.

NO Removing remote invigilation removes student choice. ACCA need to be fully engaged with the market, constantly reviewing market solutions, and re-working their management of suppliers. Remote invigilation helps professionalise the sector, helping to greatly expose and prevent malpractice. 

Exam owners, solution providers, and trade bodies must collectively do better

To abandon remote invigilation requires operational heavy lifting, but also significant reflection by management. Exam owners must actively and continuously engage with the sector to avoid future ‘rug-pulls’. Solution providers must do a better job in evidencing their continuous improvement, and understand their customers far better. Trade bodies should be able to offer exam owners a ‘safe space’ to help validate and underpin their choices. Otherwise, the sector will struggle to show that they are safe custodians of assessment – restricting growth and learner choices.