What are the possible roles that language tests (and all tests) play in society? What is society, who wields power, and how are tests used in the exercise of that power? Is this power benign, or malevolent?
Let’s consider two radically different views that define each end of the spectrum.
J.S. Mill, in his famous work On Liberty (1859), argues that tests and examinations can be used to increase individual happiness. They are tools that have the power to deliver individual freedom and growth.
Michel Foucault, in his equally famous work Discipline and Punish (1975), argues that tests and examinations are the "normalizing judgments of the powerful" that suppress individuals and limit their freedom.
Foucault’s 1975 book examines the prison system and how we treat prisoners. One of the key concepts he discusses is the Panopticon, an architectural design by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s design aimed to create a system where a minimal number of guards could monitor the maximum number of prisoners. The cells were arranged around a central tower, where the guards could see every cell, but the prisoners could not see each other or the guards. This constant possibility of surveillance would make prisoners behave, even if no one was watching.
Foucault likens exams to the Panopticon. He argues that they are tools of surveillance, designed to control people.
"The examination combines the technique of an observing hierarchy with those of a normalizing judgment. It is a normalizing gaze, a surveillance that makes it possible to qualify, to classify, and to punish. It establishes over individuals a visibility through which one differentiates and judges them. This is why, in all mechanisms of discipline, the examination is highly ritualized."
What do teachers think?
Foucault’s position is intriguing. While tests are intended to measure achievement, the results should not be seen as definitive. Tests, when designed well, can measure progress and development. It is not the test itself that should be scrutinized but the design and purpose of the test. Test design is an art.
Optimistically, tests can be seen as challenges, indicating whether a certain path is appropriate. Foucault’s view, while valid, is quite cynical and extreme. However, certain factors in test administration and evaluation may contribute to his perspective. By rethinking how tests are administered and ensuring they are useful for both the test-taker and the administering institution, we can improve the process.
Importantly, test results are not absolute measures of a person’s self-worth. Test results are confidential, and even if they were known, it would be unfair to judge someone solely based on their performance.
Tests have a place in society—for example, in civil service exams where interviewing every candidate would be impractical. However, some people do not perform well in tests, and this does not reflect their true abilities. In an ideal world, candidates would be evaluated through various methods to accommodate different strengths.
A test, regardless of its format, is merely a snapshot of what someone knows or can do at a given moment. Performance anxiety can impact results, so we must consider how those in authority use test data. Is it used to "weed out" underperformers or fast-track high achievers? Or is it a tool to identify specific skills for specific jobs?
