Key Topics Covered

Justice - From Survival To Ethics

Injustice in Practice: When Assessment Impacts Lives

The Balance of Justice and Risk in Assessment

Technology for Justice in Assessment (Table)

Final Reflections

Even if we were not a human society but a flock of birds or a pride of lions, we would still need justice. From its instinctive origins, the concept of justice has evolved. In the modern world, as technologies have become deeply integrated into our lives, they have also impacted on the facade of our universal human values, such as justice.

Fairness and justice are frequently discussed and demanded. Readers of today read at least one news of that nature both globally and within national contexts, across various sectors. For example, in education, this is reflected in the concept of academic integrity; in sport, in the idea of fair play; and in tourism, in the notion of green travel. Each of these principles carries a common ethical message: that hard work and commitment should be recognised and appreciated fairly. In the context of educational assessment, justice takes on a more specific ethical meaning beyond academic integrity. First, there is a technical dimension that requires assessment outcomes to accurately reflect what learners know and can do. The second side of the coin is the ethical dimension making sure that no learner is advantaged or disadvantaged by factors unrelated to their ability.

This article explores the concept of justice in both its broader philosophical sense and its application to educational assessment. It draws on practical examples and examines how technology can support more just assessment practices, offering insights for decision-makers responsible for assessment systems.

Justice - From Survival To Ethics

If we were to look for the earliest setting in which the concept of justice emerged, it would most likely be a cave inhabited by early humans. Sustained by hunting and driven primarily by the need to survive, these people had a primitive system of justice: the weak submitted to the strong in exchange for protection, while the strong were compelled to distribute the hunted meat fairly among the group. Otherwise, no one would join them on future hunts. In this sense, primitive justice functioned as a mechanism for survival, reflecting what is later described as social contract theory (Hobbes, 1651/1996).

As humanity progressed, like everything else, the concept of justice evolved. Economic relations introduced the principle of property into justice; the right to a share of food translates into property rights. Monarchies and courts removed justice from being something that varied from tribe to tribe or village to village, placing it instead under common principles. Religions created an environment of fear (as motivation) to guarantee adherence to these rules, while art and philosophy (including democracy) transformed justice from a matter of survival instinct into one of conscience and ethics. Humanity has travelled a long, rough, yet honourable path in matters of justice, from the right to a piece of meat to the right to personal dignity, reflecting the broader evolution of distributive justice in moral and political thought (Rawls, 1971).

In this sense, justice in assessment could be viewed as both a technical and moral obligation: to measure learning and maintain trust in the system that makes decisions based on those measurements.

Injustice in Practice: When Assessment Impacts Lives

In this section, the focus is on what happens when justice in assessment is compromised. The consequences affect people’s lives, opportunities, and trust in institutions.

In the UK immigration context, investigations into English language testing in the mid-2010s (2014–2016), including the BBC Panorama exposure of the TOEIC scandal, revealed large-scale concerns around fraud in Secure English Language Tests. Investigations uncovered the use of proxy test-takers, where individuals sat the exam on behalf of candidates, as well as organised test centres facilitating cheating and impersonation, supporting candidates to obtain results that did not reflect their true language ability (BBC News, 2014). These practices were identified through investigative journalism and subsequent analysis by authorities, leading to the classification of thousands of test results as suspicious. However, later reporting raised concerns about the reliability of some of these decisions and their consequences, with some individuals potentially wrongly affected, highlighting broader issues of fairness, due process, and trust in assessment-based decisions (BBC News, 2022).

Technology was introduced. Automated voice recognition was used to flag suspicious cases, which were then reviewed by two human listeners. However, concerns were later raised that both the unvalidated technology and the scale of human verification may have contributed to some results being incorrectly classified.

According to the National Audit Office (2019), tens of thousands of visa decisions were affected, with over 28,000 adverse immigration decisions made by 2015. Investigations identified 33,663 UK TOEIC test results as “invalid,” based on voice recognition evidence of cheating, leading to visa revocations where identities could be confirmed. By March 2019, at least 11,000 individuals had left the UK following the detection of mass fraud. 

The visa and immigration decisions had far-reaching consequences for different groups of individuals, such as:

(i) international students whose visas were revoked or curtailed, preventing them from continuing their education;

(ii) graduates and early-career professionals who lost work opportunities and had to abandon planned career paths;

(iii) long-term residents or dependants who were forced to leave despite having established lives in the host country; and

(iv) individuals wrongly accused of misconduct who spent years in legal battles to clear their names. 

While the measures aimed to address malpractice, for some people, it meant they had to go back to a place they had no plans for, and forget about their dreams, but most importantly lose hope for a better future. Even in cases, some ultimately regained their rights through legal proceedings, this often came at the cost of years lost and the emotional trauma.

A shoemaker was invited to a separate court case concerning school leaving and university admissions assessments in Azerbaijan (Yulduz, 2025). The shoemaker was involved in preparing specially modified shoes designed to conceal technical devices used for cheating during examinations. The transmitters and communication tools were hidden within thick soles that had been cut and adapted to avoid detection. Candidates wearing these shoes were able to secretly transmit exam content and receive answers in real time. As part of standard monitoring procedures used by the State Examination Center of the Republic of Azerbaijan, specialised pattern detection algorithms identified a group of test-takers whose results seemed suspicious in 2025, leading to internal review followed by external investigation.

The Azerbaijani case shows us how the specialized technology and random quality assurance could prevent the misuse of assessment practices that impact on many lives and how even a shoemaker gets questioned for justice to be in place. If not prevented, this case could mean that young people at the very start of their academic journeys would have felt that their merit was taken by others who tried to gain advantage through breaches of the system.

Over history, whenever humanity has created something that could compromise justice, it has also developed something to restore it. In the context of educational assessment, while technology has evolved in ways that can be used to bypass fairness, it has also advanced to detect irregularities and safeguard justice across the assessment cycle. In the UK context, test providers strengthened security, identity verification, and monitoring procedures following the TOEIC case to reinforce integrity and due process. In Azerbaijan, the State Examination Center has applied specialised pattern detection algorithms and used analytical monitoring to identify irregularities and trigger timely investigations. These examples show that, when used effectively, technology not only detects misconduct but also acts as a preventive mechanism, helping to protect justice and most importantly trust in high-stakes assessment systems. Surely, very careful handling of results needs to be part of communication strategy for such cases.

The Balance of Justice and Risk in Assessment

Technology brings both benefits and challenges as discussed above, along with their respective trade-offs. Whether to use technology, or not, is ultimately a decision for policymakers and system leaders. This choice carries responsibility for the outcomes technology will produce in educational assessment: will it improve justice, or risk introducing new forms of unfairness? In either case, the decision holds serious implications with both opportunities and risks for those responsible for the system.

Let’s dig deeper, here. Information such as data, and resources such as skilled technical experts, are not sufficient on their own to address the issues that arise daily across countries to varying degrees. What matters most is the attitude that policy-makers and assessment professionals bring at every level of management. For example, if a region is identified as high-risk for potential breaches of testing rules, what preventive measures are in place? What resources are allocated annually to research and development in this area? These decisions represent proactive measures that require planning and investment. While such resources may not always be anticipated, leaders who prioritise risk management can ensure that attention, and where possible, resources, are directed to these issues well in advance.

Another scenario is when organisations assume that no breaches are occurring simply because no complaints or irregularities have been reported. However, it is entirely possible that breaches have taken place without being detected or documented. This raises an important question: how can such incidents be prevented in the first place? While it is not possible to guarantee that breaches will never occur, they are likely to continue, and systems must be designed to anticipate and manage them effectively.

Let us consider what can be done. First, fair assessment should be grounded in principles of holistic equity, meaning that human factors must be embedded in the design. Recently one statement came across this: “By thinking first about the individuals affected by tests, we will improve test design and validity” (Sireci, as cited in Tucker, 2026). In practice, this means making sure that every learner is assessed under conditions in which results accurately reflect their true ability. In addition, by anticipating potential risks from the perspective of those affected, assessment systems can be designed to be more protective and resilient. When this balance is not maintained, the consequences can be significant.

Technology for Justice in Assessment

Justice in the use of technology in educational assessment, particularly in high-stakes contexts, is defined by the balance between a holistic approach and the standardization in every technological aspect of the assessment cycle required for quality assurance and investigative purposes. The technology in this case can be used to both prevent and detect any irregularity aimed to compromise the justice around assessment’s use.

Digital Assessment Cycle: Safeguarding Justice Through Technology

The table below outlines how risks to justice can emerge at each stage of the Integrated Digital Assessment Cycle and how technology, when applied carefully, can strengthen fairness, transparency, and reliability in the process.

In summary, the measures outlined in the table show that justice in assessment is achieved in consideration of every single point, embedded across the entire assessment cycle through deliberate and well-governed use of technology.

Final Reflections

In conclusion, the article began with the cave human, and it can end with the modern human, creating a sense of beginning-end harmony. For the modern human, expecting fairness everywhere and without conditions is not only a matter of survival (although this aspect still exists and has been noted in the article), but also an ethical and moral imperative. With ethical and moral principles, fairness is viewed to live within one’s own field, one’s own country or region, and must be upheld across the entire world. If for early humans, principles of justice applied only within their own tribes, modern humans hold the universality of justice, which reflects the development of civilization. 

On the universal nature of justice, for example, the modern citizen celebrates the success of a football club on the other side of the world, or one feels sorrow over forest fires or volcanic eruptions in distant parts of the world, despite having no direct connection to those affected. In a similar way, one can take satisfaction in seeing a student earn a place at a top university through results they truly deserve. The individual may be unknown, from a different country, culture, or background, yet the principle is immediately recognised: effort has been fairly measured, and achievement has been justly rewarded. Just as supporters celebrate a fair victory in sport, or feel upset because of a natural disaster, such moments in education reinforce a shared state of mind. When assessment gives each learner the credit they have earned, trust is strengthened. When it does not, the sense of injustice is equally visible, even beyond national boundaries.

Whatever is invented that can put justice at risk, something else is also created to restore it. This means that this tendency will always exist within humanity, and that in itself is something quite beautiful. In a world where assessment outcomes shape lives across borders, technology becomes an operational tool, and a critical instrument through which modern systems uphold, or undermine, justice at scale. With the use of technology and self-check on risks to justice in the assessment cycle could be an operational way to maintain an eye on strengthening justice at every stage in assessment. 

When assessment is fair, the results themselves become a reward for those who design and manage the system, and over time, these fair outcomes build a broader sense of professional and societal value. In this sense, such outcomes contribute to a broader “savings pot” of value that reflects one’s role as a modern and contributing member of a civilised society.

About the Author 

Vali Huseyn is an educational assessment expert and quality auditor, recognized for promoting excellence and reform-driven scaling in assessment organizations. He mentors edtech & assessment firms on reform-aligned scaling by promoting measurement excellence, drawing on his field expertise, government experience, and regional network.

He holds a master degree in educational policy from Boston University (USA) and Diploma of Educational Assessment from Durham University (UK). Vali has supported national reforms in Azerbaijan and, through his consultancy with AQA Global Assessment Services, works with Kazakhstan and the Kyrgyz Republic to align assessment systems with international benchmarks such as CEFR, PISA, and the UIS technical criteria. He also works as a quality auditor in partnership with RCEC, most recently audited CENEVAL in Mexico. In addition, he promotes awareness of the use of technology across the assessment cycle through his work with Vretta. Fluent in Azerbaijani, Russian, Turkish, and English, he brings a deep contextual understanding to cross-country projects.

If you would like to reflect on how your assessment systems can better uphold justice, drawing on the risks and safeguards outlined in the digital assessment cycle above, or explore opportunities to showcase and promote your work, please feel free to contact Vali Huseyn at: vali.huseyn@vretta.com | LinkedIn

References

1. BBC News. (2014). Student visa system fraud uncovered. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26024375

2. BBC News. (2022). The English test that ruined thousands of lives. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60264106

3. Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1651) https://assets.cambridge.org/97805215/67978/frontmatter/9780521567978_frontmatter.pdf 

4. Huseyn, V. (2025, July). Integration of e-assessment systems and databases. Vretta. https://www.vretta.com/buzz/integration/ 

5. National Audit Office. (2019). Investigation into the response to cheating in English language tests: Summary. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Investigation-into-the-response-to-cheating-in-English-language-tests-Summary.pdf

6. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/file/feeds/PDF/9780674000780_sample.pdf

7. Tucker, E. (2026, April 17). Leading with conscience: The unyielding kindness of Stephen G. Sireci. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leading-conscience-unyielding-kindness-stephen-g-sireci-eric-tucker-0impc/?trackingId=U3j1cuY8QlaEkZi1p%2FnPZg%3D%3D

8. Yulduz, S. (2025, December 17). Details of Kamran Asadov’s criminal case – Shoemaker also invited to the investigation. https://redaksiya.az/en/kamran-esedovun-cinayet-isinin-detallari-pineci-de-istintaqa-devet-olunub

---