Search

This article proposes a pragmatic approach to data justice in education that draws upon Nancy Fraser's theory. The main argument is premised on the theoretical and practical superiority of a deontological framework for addressing algorithmic bias and harms, compared to ethical guidelines. The purpose of a deontological framework is to enable the evaluation of justice claims, not as a burden for individuals or groups, but as part of an ongoing public dialogue about the disparate impacts of algorithmic decisions. In a deontological framework, scrutiny is not limited to differences in treatment but is broader and more demanding, involving the evaluation of design approaches and a wider-ranging political discussion about who might be harmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teachers are increasingly required to enact assessment policies in digitalised spaces, raising ethical issues of privacy and surveillance in the process. Yet, while policy enactment has been examined extensively, there remains research uncertainty around the ethical dimensions associated with assessment policy in digitalised settings. Drawing upon Ball et al.'s Typology of Policy Positions, and utilising Australian teachers' interviews, we illustrate how the policy positions of the latter were shaped by critical ethical incidents in digitalised conditions. We describe how teachers struggled to reconcile their ethical obligation to provide valid assessment outcomes with their duty of care, procedural institutional commitments, and the need to protect student privacy. To ensure 'ethical assessment' practices that best fulfil their obligations, the educators were not confined to one policy position, rather they moved across roles, also framed as moral recuperation mechanisms. Regulations to help facilitate policy enactments of 'ethical assessment' in digitalised contexts are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]