Official Report 1041KB pdf
Welcome back. The next item of business is evidence on the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s “Higher History Review 2024”. I welcome Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, and Clare Hicks, the director for education reform at the Scottish Government. Fiona Robertson, chief executive; and Martyn Ware, director of policy, analysis and standards, join us from the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
You have been called to the committee to answer a number of questions. The cabinet secretary and Ms Robertson have both asked to make opening statements. If you are happy to forgo them, that will allow us to proceed straight to members’ questions. If not, I will be extremely strict on the time limits.
I am happy to forgo, if that is helpful to the committee.
Excellent, as we have a lot to get through.
Cabinet secretary, I will start with you. Given everything that you know about this year’s higher history exam and the concerns from students, teachers and markers, and having looked at the review, do you have full confidence in Fiona Robertson and the way that she and the SQA have handled the matter?
Yes, I do. I know that I have not had the time to give an opening statement, but I think that it is worth my while to put on the record how seriously I take the matter as cabinet secretary. The issue has been on-going for a number of months, and I recognise the concerns that have been raised by history teachers. It was quite right and proper that the SQA interrogated the evidence and that it conducted a fulsome review, which I am sure committee members have looked at and read in detail. The review makes a number of recommendations about next steps, but it also looks at the process that was adhered to this year. I will be very careful not to stray into operational matters, which are for the SQA, but I recognise that challenges were presented, and I think that it was right that it investigated them. The report has a fulsome body of findings on the approach that the SQA has applied.
I have also looked at the exam paper. I was an SQA marker previously, although I was not a history marker, and I recognise some of the concerns that have been raised by the teaching profession. However, I hope that the committee has looked at the report’s findings. I will bring in Fiona Robertson to talk to some of the evidence.
We will get to Ms Robertson in a moment. You accept that the situation has been on-going for months, and that the feedback from students, teachers and markers, and from some whistleblowers in the SQA, is that there is dismay with the SQA’s report. However, you are content that the report is the end of the matter and that you have full confidence in the way that it has been handled by Ms Robertson and the SQA.
Which part of the report do you not agree with, Mr Ross?
I am saying very clearly, cabinet secretary—
I would like to know the detail.
Cabinet secretary, I will ask the question and you will answer it.
I am saying very clearly that concerns have been raised with me as an MSP and with others by students, teachers, markers and people within the SQA who are unhappy with the matter. I am giving their view, not my personal opinion. Given all of that, are you still content that the review is the end of the matter and that Fiona Robertson has your full and 100 per cent confidence?
We need to look at the outcome of this year’s examination results for higher history, which is that the pass rate dropped by 13 per cent. Notable drops in the pass rate happen every year, and in a range of subject areas. Fiona Robertson can provide detail on other areas in which that has happened. It is the responsibility of the SQA, first of all, to consider complaints, which is what it has done. It has conducted an investigation—I am not going to talk to the detail and methodology of it, as it is quite right that the SQA does that. Its report was independently peer reviewed by the director the Welsh qualifications authority—I am sure that we will come on to that.
Do you believe that the report is the end of the matter, and that there is nothing further for you to do? I know that a study with the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History will conclude at the end of the week. At the moment, are you telling the committee that you are content with the findings of the report and the way in which the matter has been handled by Ms Robertson and the SQA?
I am content with the report, Mr Ross.
Okay. Thank you.
I will follow up the point that you made about the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History. I have had correspondence from a number of history teachers that referenced SATH and I was very keen to hear the association’s views. Although the Government accepts the findings of the SQA’s review, I am keen to work with the history teaching profession and to hear its feedback. It is hugely important that it is part of the process and of what comes next.
How has that information been disseminated to the profession? Since it was announced that you and Ms Robertson were going to be appearing before the committee today, history teachers have said that they had no knowledge of it. There are some concerns that that has not been disseminated as widely as it could have been.
SATH is the professional association that represents history teachers in Scotland, although not all history teachers will be a member of it. The reason that I have sought to engage with it is purely based on the correspondence that I have received from history teachers. I asked my officials to engage to that end last week—I may bring in Clare Hicks on that point. I am happy to engage more widely with the history teaching profession to hear its views. It is also important for you, as convener, to reflect that not all history teachers have the same view as those that you have just espoused.
Of course.
I hope that committee members have refreshed themselves with the publication of an article that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement yesterday.
I am keen to come on to that. Ms Hicks, do you want to add anything?
The survey that SATH is undertaking is a matter for SATH, obviously, but both the SQA and the Scottish Government will be keen to speak to it once it has considered that survey and concluded, just as we would normally engage with—
Can that be shared with the committee?
That is entirely for SATH to take forward; it is SATH’s survey.
But you have asked for it, so—
No, that is absolutely not the case.
Is the feedback coming to you? I was told that the survey will close by 6 December and that the feedback will come to you.
My understanding is that the organisation has undertaken its own survey. I did not commission that, but we have asked for feedback.
Will you be happy to share that feedback with the committee?
I will be happy to do so.
Thank you.
Ms Robertson, after all that pupils and staff have been through, are you content, ultimately, to lay the blame on students’ falling standards? Is that where you think the blame lies? Is no blame at all allocated to you or the SQA?
I do not think that the report or the work that we have done seeks to lay blame anywhere.
It does.
Our responsibilities as an awarding body, and my responsibilities as chief examiner—
I am sorry, but paragraph 8, on page 2 of the report states that
“overwhelmingly ... the poor standard of responses provided by learners in this year’s examinations”
led to a 13.1 per cent drop. Please do not come to this committee and say that your report does not say that, when it is on page 2, in paragraph 8.
What I was trying to say was that the report and the review into higher history sought to be evidence based. As an awarding body, we have a responsibility to award qualifications on the basis of the performance of learners. The evidence that we laid out in the report reflects the evidence that we gained through the awarding process. It includes the feedback of markers, who are teachers working in schools across Scotland and who provided feedback on the standard that they saw through the marking process.
On results day, for graded courses, we award around 140 national qualifications. Every one of those courses reflects the performance of individual learners. If individual learners meet the standard of our qualifications, they achieve those qualifications. If they do not meet that standard, they do not achieve the qualifications. That is not laying blame but seeking to ensure that our qualifications system is based on an understanding of the national standard and the fact that we award qualifications on merit.
Very serious questions were raised in relation to higher history this year, and I have treated them very seriously. That is why I commissioned the review. The review was commissioned by me and undertaken by my colleagues within our existing structures and responsibilities. It was the right thing for us to do, given the questions that were raised.
Why did you not launch the review straight away? Why did it take you until 11 September? I am sure that the cabinet secretary looked at the figures that were coming in. Surely you looked at them and thought, “Why has there been a 13.1 per cent drop in higher history this year?” You knew that there were complaints, but you seem to have launched the review because there was a bit of backlash, both politically here in the Parliament and on social media. Why not launch the review on the day you saw the figures that were coming in?
There are a couple of things in there. There is a general point about variability, and then I will talk about—
Well, no. I am keen to get to members’ questions. Why did you not launch the review when you saw the figures?
First, variability in attainment is not unusual. We do not have a fixed A to C attainment rate across our courses. There is variation. For example, this year, in higher applications of maths, there was a 13.3 per cent decline in A to C grades, and, in higher religious, moral and philosophical studies, there was a 7.1 per cent increase in A to C grades. There is variability—
For the migration and empire option, the marks were down by 26.9 per cent compared with 2019. That is a huge drop. Surely you, as the head of the SQA, thought, “Minus 26 per cent? Someone’s got to look into this.” However, you did not do that. You waited until the controversy was raised in this building by parliamentarians and teachers were speaking up on social media before you launched a review. I do not understand what took you so long.
12:45
I have highlighted that there are variabilities—
I know, yes.
—in attainment. That is important for the committee to understand. In relation to higher history itself, you are right that there were changes in marking—there were changes in the marks that learners achieved between years. As part of our awarding processes, we consider those issues. During the grade boundary process, for example—
We will come on to that in a moment. You still have not—
I think—
I am sorry, but I am asking a very simple question. Why was there a gap between you getting the results—and knowing that, on one of the papers, the marks allocated had dropped by 26 per cent—and 11 September, when you launched a review that lasted two months? Can you answer that? If not, we will move on to other members’ questions.
I was confident on results day, and I remain confident, about the results that we published.
Wow. Okay.
However, I recognise the importance, as I am sure that the committee does, of the integrity of our qualifications and public confidence in our qualifications. Therefore, given the sustained criticism in relation to higher history, I took the view that it was important, and that I had a responsibility, to undertake a review. That is what we did. The reason that it took the length of time that it did is that the authors of the report and I felt that it was important that we considered it in the context of our end-to-end awarding processes.
That is what I have been trying to outline in answer to your questions. We have checks and balances in our awarding processes, from the start of devising qualifications and devising exam papers, right through to results day, the publication of course reports, which provide feedback to teachers, and our understanding standards events. We have a—rightly—complex process in place to provide confidence in the integrity of our qualifications. Therefore, it was right that we undertook this review and that we that we considered it in the context—
Okay. That is fine. I do not know why it was not right to do it the day that the exam results came out. That is the bit that I am struggling to understand.
Finally—because a lot of other members want to come in—the cabinet secretary mentioned the article in the TES last night, authored by the SQA’s principal assessor for higher history and senior team leader for higher history. It is a great defence of you, Ms Robertson. Is it only a coincidence that it came out the night before you were appearing before this committee?
It is not a coincidence—
It is not a coincidence. So, it was an orchestrated effort to get it into the public domain before you came here today to answer questions from MSPs. Yes or no?
The timing of the publication of the article was not down to me. The precise timing—
You just said that it was co-ordinated ahead of you coming to committee.
Following the publication of the report, there had been anonymous commentary in relation to teachers and others, commenting on the report. In discussions with the principal assessor and the team leader, they were keen to put the record straight—
Hours before you came to committee—
—and on that basis, they were happy to set that out.
Interesting. Okay.
I turn to Pam Duncan-Glancy.
Good morning, and thank you for the responses that we have had so far. As all of you will be aware, I am concerned about the issue, not least because of the impact that it has had on some students, but also because of the long-term implications that it might have for trust in the system.
We have heard from some teachers and pupils about the results of the report that has come out. I will quote some: they have said that it was a “gut punch”; it was “insulting”; they felt that people had “suffered injustice”; and it means that there is a “lack of trust”. One teacher said:
“I can’t help but feel completely let down by the results of this report, which although disappointing is not surprising ... Having taught higher for 8 years, I was, until this year, confident in my ability to teach to the standard required ... This year has not been the same, as consistent mixed messages from colleagues who are markers, the SQA and Understanding Standards materials, has meant that I am no longer feeling this way and unable to instil confidence in my students”.
Those comments are why we are here, and they are why it is really important that we put on the record what has happened.
Cabinet secretary, did you instruct the review, and did you ask that it be independent?
No, I did not instruct the review.
Why not?
As I think that the chief examiner has explained, the matter is one for the qualifications body in the first instance. The review is now complete. Is it now your view that I should instruct an independent inquiry into the report?
It was always my view that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills should intervene when there is a 26 per cent drop in attainment in one subject, yes.
That is fine. In that case, I presume that you have looked in detail at the content of the report, Ms Duncan-Glancy, because I have not yet been presented with an evidence base to substantiate my instructing the chief examiner to lead an independent review. If you have that evidence base, I am happy to consider it. I have also asked SATH for further follow-up information. However, from my reading of the report, I have not been presented with that evidence.
I go back to the point that the convener made about the variation in pass rates. Is the committee trying to make the point that, if the pass rate varies by 13 per cent in one year, we should automatically have reviews into every subject area?
With respect, cabinet secretary, I think that you are really missing the point—
No, I do not believe that I am.
I am sorry but I have to say that I think that you are. The issue is not so much whether, if there is a particular rate, we do X. The disconnect in what is happening between pupils and teachers and the SQA is ever growing and the gulf of distrust is widening. That is the problem here, and it does not surprise me, unfortunately, that it continues when you cannot accept that that is the case.
You asked me whether I am now asking you to instruct an independent review. My question was whether, when you noticed the change in rate and started to hear that there were concerns, you asked the qualifications body to look into it.
Yes.
Are you happy that the SQA used its own staff and spoke to its own teachers, who are markers, to do that, and that it has produced a report that you think does not protect the system as it was?
You asked whether I had instructed the review itself. I did not, and the chief examiner can answer for herself on that point. I met with the chief examiner on three occasions during the review because I was concerned. I was concerned because, as members around the table know, I was receiving the same correspondence as other MSPs were receiving. Therefore, I was concerned at the outset and I wanted to understand what had happened.
We can talk about variation in the round. Variation in pass marks happens every year, and it happens in a variety of subjects. However, what I was hearing from the profession and from some parents was that there was an issue specifically with higher history and paper 2 this year, and I wanted to be absolutely certain that that was not the case. It is quite right that the SQA investigated the matter. You asked about the SQA using its own staff to do that investigation. The staff you are talking about are practising teachers, many of whom are markers for the SQA—
All of them are working for the SQA as part of that process. They might work in schools, but they are also part of the SQA process. Was anyone who was not part of the process—
Is the point that you are making that they therefore cannot be objective?
It is a question to be asked.
That question is probably best directed to Ms Robertson in the first instance, although I am happy to come back to the point about independence and how we can provide objectivity, because it is a fair point.
Can you answer the question on independence before we go to Ms Robertson, or do you want to hear from Ms Robertson first?
I think that Ms Robertson should provide the context first.
Okay, if you need to hear from Ms Robertson first, we will do that.
The SQA has a directorate of policy analysis and standards, whose director, Martyn Ware, is with me. We also have a head of standards. We have a responsibility to ensure that standards are maintained over time. The work that was done in the SQA was undertaken independently within the SQA. The review was not undertaken by individuals who had been involved in the awarding process, which is important. We have a functional responsibility to undertake that work, which is what we did. However, it was important that we were also able to stress test and to seek an element of external review, which is why we involved the Welsh Joint Education Committee in the work.
A lot of the debate around the issue has been a debate between teachers, and I absolutely acknowledge that there is a strength of view among teachers—among all teachers, in fact. However, there is a variety of views on the issue, including the very strongly held views, which have integrity, of the principal assessor and the senior marker.
I was aware that, whatever conclusions the report reached, there would not be unanimity of view among teachers, regardless of whether they worked for the SQA as markers or appointees. It is important that we not seek to divide teachers into those who mark for the SQA and those who do not. A significant number of teachers mark for the SQA. Most teachers mark for the SQA during their careers, and I would like to see more of them do that.
At its heart, the review was about marking. Therefore, the focus of our energies was, unsurprisingly, on seeking to ensure that we understood the evidence base and the complexity of the issues that are contained in the report in relation to the marking process. That is why our focus was very much on marking and markers. It was important that we did that.
I understand that. At any point in the review, should you have spoken to people who have not been part of the marking process that you oversee? You said that the review was undertaken internally by the SQA. Would it not have been helpful to speak with people who were not already part of the SQA?
Obviously, we were aware of some of the commentary. There are two points to make in response to that question. One is that I commissioned the review. I asked colleagues to carry out a thorough evidence-led review and it was important that they did so without fear or favour. The head of standards and Martyn Ware had whatever conversations they needed to have to fulfil the commission.
Martyn can talk a little bit more about the methodology, but we sought the views of the WJEC and reviewed all the commentary that markers and others had provided as part of the review. There were no strictures on the methodology. It was important that, at its heart, the review was about marking because the central criticism was that the marking standard had changed. Therefore, it was right and proper that the review considered issues in relation to the marking standard.
Do you accept that teachers have said that they think that there was a change and that there was a lack of communication from your body to them on what that change would mean?
I accept that teachers have said what you said.
As you would expect, the marking instructions for our assessments are not released before the examination. We need to ensure that our assessments are set within the context of the content of each course and the course specification—that is the key thing—and that the marking instructions that markers are provided with, along with our processes, which are laid out in some detail in the report, are sufficient to ensure the integrity and consistency of our marking.
The report says that there are challenges not only for history but for other subjects that involve extended pieces of writing and that are perhaps considered to be more subjective. That is not just an SQA challenge; other exam boards face it, as well. Therefore, we have checks and balances in the process to ensure integrity.
We would legitimately be criticised if we provided less rather than more detail in the marking instructions. We want to provide our markers with as much information as possible to ensure the integrity of our marking, so the marking instructions are detailed. They are not exhaustive, but they are detailed.
But teachers have said that that is not clear and, whether you call it blame or otherwise, the explanation that the report has given for the drop is that learners did not perform. How do you explain that problem?
13:00
That is where the course report, which was published recently, is helpful, because it sets out how learners responded to the questions that were asked. I am happy to talk the committee through that.
We publish a course specification, which is the blueprint—the framework, if you like—for how learning and teaching are considered in that course. The examination needs to be set in the context of that course specification. We provide marking instructions to assist markers. Those instructions are subject to debate and review with markers and the senior team, and that debate can be robust—
Was it robust this year?
Yes.
More robust than normal?
It was as robust as it should be.
More robust than normal?
Last night, I spoke to a marker who wanted me to know that concerns were raised, after the exams had been sat but before a single paper had been marked, that markers were being asked to seek a higher standard this year. The marker said that that was made clear and that the meeting was very uncomfortable for members of the SQA. Is that fair?
I do not think that that is reflected in the report—
I am less concerned about the report. I am asking you a question about that meeting and any feedback that you, as head of the SQA, received about it. Are you saying that it was a normal meeting at which the matter was discussed and that there was nothing extraordinary about it this year—yes or no?
We have sought feedback on the marker meetings. I was not at the marker meeting, and I do not think that anyone in this room was at that meeting—
No, but you are the head of the SQA, and if there are concerns about a marker meeting, I would expect you to know about them. Are you saying that no concerns were ever raised at any point that were above the normal standard?
No concerns were raised that were above—
No concerns were raised.
Those meetings involve—as they should—a healthy debate. Martyn Ware can set this out. We set the assessment and develop the marking instructions, but we also need to see that working live, when we get scripts through. That is a normal part of the process. There are discussions among the marking team to refine the marking instructions and ensure that we get it right.
I would see a healthy debate among teachers as a good thing, and I would not consider that to be unusual. Nonetheless, we did not get feedback that was anything out of the ordinary. Martyn Ware can say a little bit more about what is—
I am okay. If the head of the SQA tells me that, I will accept that evidence, although it is contrary to everything that I heard last night.
On that point about the meeting, I have heard that there were two meetings about the matter. At the first meeting, it was decided that there would not be a lowering of the grade to take into consideration the difference, but, four days later, it was decided that there would be. What changed in the process in those four days?
For clarity, there were two different meetings—
There were three different meetings—the one that I was speaking about was at the pre-marking stage. I have seen the same email as Pam Duncan-Glancy has seen; she is speaking about a separate meeting at which legitimate concerns were raised. We have got as far as we are going to get with the meeting before any papers were marked. I am very suspicious about the evidence, but I take it at face value.
Pam Duncan-Glancy would like to know about the changing of the gradings and what was discussed before, four days later, the SQA’s position changed.
For clarity, you are talking about the markers meeting—
I have explained that, yes.
Pam Duncan-Glancy is referring to the grade boundary discussion.
Yes.
I will be happy to talk about that.
I oversee the grade boundary process, but I do not chair every grade boundary meeting, because I cannot physically do that in the time that we have. We have a narrow window between the conclusion of the exam diet and the certification process. I am supported by two senior directors, one of whom is sitting to my right. As a team, we discuss the decisions that we are making on grade boundaries. To be clear, this is not about marking; it is about grade boundaries, which are something different—
We have cleared that up; we did that a couple of minutes ago.
We have discussions about the decisions at individual grade boundary meetings, bearing in mind that, on some days, there are 15 such meetings, with three panels all running concurrently. We need to take consistent decisions on grade boundaries across those meetings.
This year, in our policy for awarding, we were clear that the return of the inclusion of coursework in the assessment process for many of our courses might have some consequences on attainment. On that basis, the policy sets out that we might need to make some modest grade boundary adjustments in favour of learners. That involves lowering the boundary at which a learner has either a C pass or an A pass.
The first grade boundary meeting for higher history concluded, after discussing many of the issues that have been discussed today around the performance of the assessments, the performance of learners and so on, that there would be no changes to the grade boundaries. The following morning, I asked whether sufficient consideration had been given to the return of coursework for higher history, being mindful of the fact that we had seen quite a shift in learner performance, which had been fully discussed at the grade boundary meeting, which was not chaired by me. I asked that we consider whether modest adjustments should be made on the basis of the return of coursework, in a way that, crucially, would be consistent with the way that we were treating other courses.
I hope that that gives the committee some assurance that we were looking across courses as well as within courses. It was on that basis that the grade boundary meeting was pulled together for a second time, and a modest adjustment was made to the grade boundaries—I think that it was minus 2 at A and C.
That is helpful.
Cabinet secretary, you said that you might want to come back in on the independent review of the report. Two SNP members want to ask about that.
My question is about the independence of the review. Has the SQA report been reviewed by an independent person? If so, who?
As the committee will be aware, Richard Harry, the executive director of qualifications and assessment in the Welsh exam board, carried out an independent peer review of the report. Fiona Robertson can speak about the detail of the methodology that was applied, because the methodology for the independent peer review was decided by the SQA, not by the Scottish Government.
I would like to bring the discussion back to the people who are important in all this: the young people and the parents who support them as they go through what is, as we all know, a traumatic time in their lives.
I have been an elected official for more years than I care to remember, at local and national levels, and I know that, when anything happens with exams, parents and the students themselves get on to their elected officials right away. With that in mind, I note that, unlike the convener, I have not had a Santa’s sack load of mail regarding this issue. Fiona Robertson, has the SQA received any complaints from pupils and parents since the appeals process was closed and completed?
I believe not. I have had some correspondence from members of this Parliament, but not from learners or parents.
Cabinet secretary, have you received any complaints on the issue? I ask because, obviously, in this situation, if parents are not contacting their local member, they will contact you.
I think that we have received one such complaint since the appeals process closed.
I have no further questions.
Cabinet secretary, would you like to say anything on the independence of the review?
I have nothing further to add.
You asked to come back in on the issue.
I do not think that I have anything further to add to my reply to Ms Dunbar in relation to the involvement of the Welsh qualifications body. Fiona Robertson might want to speak about the methodology and the commissioning.
We have not really had any questions on that yet.
Jackie Dunbar wants to come in on a separate point.
This follows on from Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point that teachers have said that there was a change. What were the differences between this year’s higher history paper and the previous year’s? What was the change? Has there been one?
Obviously, our exams change every year, but they are set within the context of the course specification. We seek to ensure that we ask valid questions that learners and their teachers might anticipate, in the context of the course specification.
I am trying to figure out whether there was a difference in the level of the questions.
As the convener highlighted, the focus has been particularly on the different performance on paper 2, which is Scottish history, and in particular on the most popular choice, which is migration and empire. There are quite a lot of choices in the higher history paper, and it is quite a complex paper to set. In particular, for the paper on world and European history, learners can choose almost any period of history, so there is a lot of choice for learners and their teachers in how they engage with the assessments.
Paper 2, which is the Scottish history paper, has been the focus, and in particular that focus has been on the questions on empire and migration. I am confident that the questions that were asked this year were absolutely consistent with the course specification and were, therefore, valid questions to ask.
Surely the point is less about the questions than it is about what you allocate marks for. Is that not where the concerns have come? You asked for things this year that previously have not been requested.
Obviously, by definition, if you have a different question, you are asking for different things in response. I say that just for clarity. The marking instructions will change from year to year, because we are asking a different question. However—
You have a number of past papers on the SQA website, and they tell people how to gain marks.
Yes.
Are all those relevant for people who sat the exams this summer? Are you confident, as you sit here in front of the committee today, that the information that is published on your website for learners and teachers on what you allocate marks for is accurate?
Yes, I am confident.
Okay.
However, what I am saying is that it is important that our assessments will vary each year, as you would expect and—
That is understandable, but I think that what people have trouble with—
—the marking instructions, therefore, will be, by definition, different. The marking instructions are designed to help teachers to mark, so they need to be sufficiently detailed to ensure the integrity of our marking, while not being exhaustive. However, there are checks and—
Yes, but the report that you say defends everything that the SQA has done says on page 33:
“the explain question for Migration and Empire needing a name to get a mark—this is not the same as previous years.”
In the same box, it says:
“The marking standard was much higher than previous years.”
That is on page 33 of your own report.
That was a quote from the markers. That is what—
Yes, I know, but they are the markers you listened to in forming the report. Are you saying that even the markers you quote in your report are wrong?
No. I am just reflecting the evidence from the feedback from markers. However, I think that the report also highlights—Martyn Ware can explain this in far more detail than I can—that learners did not need to name anyone to get the mark. Further checks were done to ensure that we had evidence to support that, and—
Okay.
No—this is really important.
There is something called a marker check right at the end of the process. Despite all the checks and balances that have gone before, there is a final check before finalisation and awarding take place. Even if a marker thought that the marking standard had changed, and even if a marker had been harsher in their marking—there is variability in marking—we have checks and balances in place to ensure that any adjustments that are required are taken forward. Every marker’s marking is checked.
I have not been a marker for the SQA, but I have marked exam scripts. That is common practice across education, including in further and higher education. That is what we do to ensure the integrity of our marking.
13:15As Mr Adam highlighted, we have a really important role to fulfil. The interests of learners are at the heart of everything that we do. We want learners to do well, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that qualifications reflect the performance of learners, and that is what we have done.
I do not think that any of us feel happy about the fact that performance has dipped this year. It is a reasonable issue for the committee, teachers, learners and, indeed, colleagues across the SQA to discuss. The SQA has had a lot of challenge and scrutiny in recent years, but that debate must be tempered by the 10,000 learners who have undertaken that course this year, and—
I am sorry, but we need to move on.
—it must also be tempered by those who are preparing for exams next year.
Or those who are struggling to prepare, because they are still waiting to get information.
We have a responsibility to them.
It has certainly been put to me that, in relation to the cohort who took highers this year, the numbers achieving A to C grades in history fell by 13.1 per cent, but there was no similar fall across all the other subjects that they were studying. That is why there are legitimate questions.
I am grateful to Fiona Robertson and the SQA for the briefing that they gave to Opposition spokespeople on the eve of the review being published. Members of Parliament have made it very clear that we wanted more engagement from the SQA in recent years, so we got that.
On the convener’s point about variation, it is entirely legitimate to say that there is variation every year—of course there is. The variation on this subject this year was clearly an outlier—any higher maths student could tell you that that was an outlier. That is why there is concern here.
I welcome the TES column that was written by the principal assessor and the team leader. There is plenty in it that I agree with, but the point in their column that I really disagree with—this is at the core of my concern about the review and what is not in it—is that they say that it is not the responsibility of the SQA to look into why there was a drop in performance, and that, essentially, its job with the review was to quality assure its own processes. I am not going to dispute the outcomes of that review. However, if it is not the role of the chief examiner to look into why there was such a significant drop in performance, whose role is it?
If, for the purposes of this question, we accept the premise—others have already covered potential issues with the review itself—that the review found that there were no issues with either the exam or the marking, as has been pointed out already, the conclusion is that the fall in the rate was due to a drop in the performance of students. I feel that the review is only half a review, because it does not look into why there was a drop. If it is not the chief examiner’s job to look into that, whose job is it?
I have a responsibility to explain, and that is what the course review does. We also have a responsibility to ensure that we are clear with teachers—this is what we do through our events on understanding standards—about what the standard is, that we are able to exemplify the standard and that we are able to offer support to teachers who are teaching our courses.
I have a responsibility, and the SQA has a responsibility, to explain. If you look at the course review for this year, it explains some of the issues in relation to the empire and migration section in one of the question papers. When I spoke—
If I could just cut in, I said that the course review explains what the issues are in relation to the answers that came back. The core question is this: why did those answers come back? If we accept your premise that the cause of the issue was underperformance by pupils compared with previous years, then yes—your job is to explain the SQA’s processes, procedures and quality assurance, and you have done that. Surely your job as chief examiner is also to look into why there is unusual underperformance. This subject was clearly an outlier. If it is not the chief examiner’s job to look into why pupils underperformed to such an extent this year, whose job is it?
I will rephrase that, because that was my first question. Do you think that it is your job to understand why pupils underperformed? We can set aside the process issues with the SQA as an organisation. Is it your job, as the chief examiner, to understand why there was underperformance, if this year was such an outlier?
I play a role in explaining what has happened and how learners have engaged with our qualifications. On results day, we provide a snapshot of the performance of the learners who have taken our qualifications.
However, there are wider issues in which the SQA has no locus, such as presentation decisions, the quality of learning and teaching, and the progression of learners. About a quarter of learners who undertake higher history do not have a previous qualification in history. That is not my decision—presentation decisions are at the discretion of schools. There are a number of things that I cannot fully explain, but the SQA holds a lot of useful evidence about how many learners are being presented and how they are engaging with our qualifications.
I will give an example. The course report highlights that, for one of the questions on empire and migration, many people gave examples of pull factors when the question had asked for push factors. We cannot give people marks if they answer a different question. Although I accept that there have been issues, there was clearly a shift in performance in higher history this year.
That is the core point. On that specific example, I do not have the depth of knowledge about that paper, but I accept that you cannot give marks for an answer to a question that was not asked.
I am afraid that many people did that.
Cabinet secretary, although I accept that the SQA’s report was externally quality assured by the Welsh equivalent body, the report is about quality assuring the SQA’s own processes. The SQA came to the conclusion that the issue was not the exam paper or the marking scheme, but unusual underperformance by pupils. If it is not the chief examiner’s role to look into why that was the case, in relation to questions about presentation and so on, where in the system does that responsibility lie? Whose responsibility is it to look into that further?
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government and local authorities. In law, we have the responsibility for improving Scottish education, and I accept my role in that.
The point that Fiona Robertson made about overpresentation is a key theme in the report, which—I know—all committee members will have read. The report looks at whether young people sat a qualification at a level that they might not have been ready for, and whether that perhaps had an impact on their performance. We need to look at that specific issue. I am keen to speak to the chief inspector about that and about how we can provide support by working with local authorities. The committee will be aware of the on-going improvement work on the curriculum improvement cycle.
I am also mindful of the longer term, because I do not want a repeat of what happened this year. I want young people, parents and teachers to have confidence in our qualifications system. I am mindful of the committee’s report and that we will have a debate on the matter in two weeks, and I would be happy to meet any committee members if they have any ideas.
I am particularly mindful of the role of accreditation and of how we can provide confidence in the system that there is independence of thought in applying regulation to the qualifications. As the cabinet secretary, I will need to consider that, because I am mindful that learning lessons through the reform process is so important. On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s point, the new qualifications body has to carry the trust of Scotland’s teachers, pupils and parents.
It is imperative that we consider the role of continuous assessment, which is a live issue in relation to my recommendations on Professor Hayward’s review. Arguably, if we had a process of continuous assessment—which, incidentally, we did have—we would not have such a level of overpresentation.
In fact, I remember sitting where Ms Dunbar is sitting now, asking Fiona Robertson that exact question, probably in 2019. As we do not currently have continuous assessment, we arguably have overpresentation. It is difficult to quantify that, but I think that one of the Hayward recommendations, on going back to continuous assessment, is the answer. That will help to drive improvement, and help to support and scaffold young people in preparation for that qualification.
The third point concerns accreditation and next steps. I am also very mindful of the role of SATH in all this, and listening to its feedback will be imperative with regard to where we go next.
If you are arguing that one cause could be that too many people are taking history and have not done the preparation, why was there such a fall this year?
To go back to the “Higher History Review 2024” report, the chart on page 36 is clear. In 2015, attainment was at 85 per cent; in 2016, it was 87 per cent; and it was subsequently 83 per cent, 83 per cent, 73 per cent, 78 per cent and 78 per cent—and then, in 2024, there is the fall to 66 per cent. Why would that be the case just this year, and not over the past couple of years?
It is very difficult for me, as cabinet secretary, to point to one factor—
But you are using that as a potential reason.
Of course. On page 10 of the report, it talks through the qualification changes in recent years. It also makes a point about the qualification requirements for history, in particular, not having been consistent since 2018. There have been changes to the qualifications largely as a result—
But just last year, 78 per cent were getting grades between A and C.
Yes, but last year, a different approach would have been taken, because the approach that was taken during the Covid pandemic was still being applied. A more lenient approach was applied last year. Fiona Robertson might want to speak about the detail of that.
Over the past five years, there have been changes both to the structure of assessment and the awarding approach post pandemic—
In fairness, I understand that. It was more on the point from the cabinet secretary—
I think that that sets in context the point that you make about comparisons. I do not want to overstate this, but we need to be careful about drawing comparisons. We have seen shifts in attainment across other courses, as well. I am not seeking to diminish what we are talking about, but it is important that we do not either overstate or understate what we are seeing.
A lot of members still want to come in. Ross Greer, do you have a brief question?
I hope that this is just a yes or no question, convener. It is about communication with the profession. Am I right in understanding that there is no way for the SQA to communicate directly with everyone who teaches history in Scotland? You can communicate with schools and subject-specialist associations, and with your own markers, but there is, at present, no mailing list of every history teacher in Scotland.
That is my understanding. We have contact with the relevant association and through the events that we hold—there are mechanisms that we can and do use. We are looking at that in the context of our engagement with subject specialists across the spectrum, and we are keen to do more of it. There is good engagement on an on-going basis, but you are absolutely right.
Absolutely—that is something to consider for the wider reform programme, not just for history.
Yes, that is true.
I thank the witnesses for joining us this afternoon. Confidence and trust in the exam system really matters, and the internal investigation has not restored that trust—we all need to admit that. In fact, I think that it has undermined trust even more. We see it all online—that the SQA is marking its own homework and the investigation is a whitewash. How do you move on from that? I put that question to the cabinet secretary first.
The member raises an important point. I go back to a point that I raised earlier: it is imperative that the new qualifications body, and the SQA, have the trust of Scotland’s teachers and its pupils and parents. This has been a challenging time with regard to some of the coverage. However, opinions vary on some of the outputs.
Members have made points about the report. However, the report puts substantive evidence to its recommendations, and I think that it is difficult to challenge the content of the report. I have not heard today from the committee any challenge to the content.
If, after this committee session, the committee hears evidence from people who get in contact with it, I will be happy to consider that. At present, however, the report does not provide me with an evidence base for looking at anything further. I think that that was the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy was referring to earlier. We have to work with Scotland’s teachers—as you all know, I was previously a teacher and I was a marker. The point was made earlier about the disconnect that often exists between the qualifications body and being at the chalkface. I think that being a marker is important, in particular for a secondary teacher, in order to get an understanding of the national standard and an opportunity to contribute to what the national standard looks like. In my view, that informs better practice, and it can help to support better learning and teaching.
We need to look at opportunities for the teaching profession to get involved with the new qualifications body, so that teachers do not feel as though it is an organisation that does things to them. I speak from personal experience and I know that that was often the feeling of the profession in the past. It is important that teachers have professional opportunities to engage with the new qualifications body and be part of it, so that they own the qualifications process, as much as anything else.
I will let Pam Duncan-Glancy come in for a second, on that point.
13:30
My earlier point was not that we should now have an independent review, although that is a legitimate view. It was more about whether, when you saw all of this happening before the SQA did the review, you asked it to do an independent review.
I did not. I answered that question previously.
Cabinet secretary, current history teachers who marked the exam said that they were “confused and demoralised” and that those who were in charge of assessments have “effectively destroyed the subject”, and your colleague Fergus Ewing has said that the process has been “fatally flawed”.
I note where we are today and what has been investigated. You have a power to regulate procedures in the SQA. You said that you are happy enough and that we need to move on, but do you not consider that the questions have not been answered, that a lot of people will not want to be markers any longer and that a lot of people will not have confidence in the next history exam? What is angering pupils and parents is the fact that people who are going to sit the next exam will not have confidence in it. Do we actually need a new, independent investigation to look at the issue, and not an internal process?
I take on board what you said about the Welsh being involved, but the report has not cleared things up. I am not sure whether you think that time will mean that things move on and people will just have to live with it, but does this not show that there is a problem at the heart of the SQA? Are you taking advice from your colleagues who are not happy with the process?
I very much recognise the strength of feeling in relation to the matter. In my experience, it is quite unusual that the qualifications body would instruct a review of such a nature. I am not sure whether that has happened previously in other subject areas.
It has not happened for many years.
It is therefore quite unique.
I take the member’s point on board, but the issue that I have as cabinet secretary is that the report that I have been presented with does not present a substantive evidence base for me to issue a directive. I think that that is the point that the member is making. If that evidence base exists, I will consider it. However, the report that I have been presented with, which is a rigorous report—I am sure that all committee members have read it in detail—looks very thoroughly at the question paper, at the marking guidelines and at how they were applied. I do not have—
What would the trigger be? If a teacher contacts you tomorrow to say—
I am more than happy to hear concerns from any of Scotland’s teachers. They routinely contact me on a daily basis, Mr Briggs, and I am more than happy to engage with them.
I have accepted the findings of the report that has been published. Incidentally, I do not think that any member who is in the room today has found any issue with the findings of the report. I was keen to hear from SATH. I think that it is reasonable for me as cabinet secretary to say that I accept the findings of the report but I want to hear the views of Scotland’s history teachers about where we go next. That is the pragmatic approach to take. If Mr Briggs has any further information, I am more than happy to hear it.
Just to be clear, I note that, as a committee member, I challenge the findings of the report. The pool has not been wide enough to get information to form the report. If you speak only to the people who are going to agree with you, you will come up with a report such as this one. If you cast the net more widely, you might get more recommendations.
Convener, can other members make points about how they feel about the report?
Absolutely. John Mason is next.
I have a few questions. Ross Greer asked what explanations there might be. One was that candidates were entered before they were ready and another was about falling standards of literacy. Is that a possibility?
The report makes that comment, and it was made by one of the markers. It is an observation from somebody who marked this year’s exam scripts. It is not for me to comment on that, but that is a reason that has been put forward in the report. Fiona Robertson might want to say more on that.
Some evidence is emerging from markers, not just in history but in other areas where we expect extended pieces of writing, that some learners—not all, because we still see excellence—are struggling more than previously. History is a subject where we might see that play out, because we expect extended pieces of writing.
That leads me to my next question. There is an idea that some subjects are more affected by such issues, and the suggestion is made that there is more variation in humanities subjects than there might be in maths, for example. Is that the case?
The report highlights that. However, we are talking less about variability and more about the fact that marking can be more challenging in subjects that are considered to be more subjective.
They are less black and white.
Yes. An example is the marking instructions for physics, chemistry and maths. Those exams often include short questions that require very specific answers to get the marks. They are almost binary in nature, and that is understood. In my answers to previous questions, I have set out the checks and balances that we have put in place in that knowledge for courses such as history.
The issue is not unique to Scotland; it is an issue that all exam bodies in similar positions to us—and, indeed, in other sectors—also face.
I guess that we all have different preferences. That is why I preferred maths and accountancy to history and geography.
The report states that the marking instructions were “intentionally more detailed” this year. Was that because everything is improving year by year or was it specifically felt that they had not been adequate in the past?
I go back to my comment that the marking instructions are different. There was further exemplification in the markers meetings and in the marking instructions to help teachers to mark. It was that simple.
That was in response to a request from markers for further detail in the marking instructions to give them greater confidence in the consistency of their marking. It was a direct response to feedback, as well as the other factors that Fiona Robertson mentioned.
Okay—thank you. The report makes the point that there was difficulty in recruiting markers in some subjects. That might lead me to think that people do not have the required experience or are inconsistent. Would that be a wrong assumption?
Yes. Markers go through training and quality assurance before they go into live marking. However, it is fair to highlight that, for some courses and some subjects, we have challenges in marking. Sometimes markers withdraw at the last minute, for lots of different reasons, so it is challenging. All committee members will know this, but I highlight that we mark about 1.3 million scripts from the start of the diet to the point at which there is a cut-off, which is in some cases at the beginning of June. It is done in a very concentrated time-defined period, so we need all markers to be with us throughout that.
The report highlights that there were some issues with markers, but history was not significantly different from other courses or other subjects that we deal with.
If you had your time again, or if exactly the same circumstances happened again, would you commission a fully independent report rather than an internal one that was externally verified? Would you do it differently?
The first point in the opening statement that I did not give was about the discussion about the SQA’s carrying out of the review, which has been a core criticism. The simple answer to the question of why we carried out the review is that it was our job to do so. The committee will want to consider that in the context of what the cabinet secretary has said and its consideration of the Education (Scotland) Bill.
When I appeared before the committee in September, I said—I think that it was in response to a question that you asked—that there is a choice about where the regulator sits and what it does. At the moment, the regulator in Scotland does not do national qualifications at all. They are self-regulated. There are some choices around that. If anything, rather than considering whether the work should have been done independently or not, the question therefore gives rise to a consideration of future arrangements.
We all want there to be public confidence in our education system and our qualifications system. I certainly want that. If the arrangements that are in place give rise, for whatever reason—rightly or wrongly—to the kinds of questions that have been asked today, it is legitimate to question those arrangements. However, it is important that I highlight that everyone who has been involved in the review has acted with the utmost integrity. I fully stand by the report.
On that basis, the very short answer to your question is no. I am content with the report and how it has been undertaken. However, if public confidence or the committee’s confidence is such that there is another structural issue that needs to be considered, that is a matter for the committee and for the Scottish Government to consider.
We have to watch the time, because we are not allowed to meet while Parliament is meeting in the chamber. We have only a few more minutes, and the committee has other business. I would have liked to have been able to spend more time on the issue, but the committee genuinely appreciates the time that you have given us today.
Given what you have just said to Willie Rennie, if you are so confident in the report and so confident that the findings are clear and categorical, why not have a wholly independent review? Surely that would simply confirm everything that was in the internal review that was externally verified. That would then just be copied into a wholly independent review that would have the trust of teachers, students and markers.
As I have just said, I have undertaken the work on the review in line with my responsibilities, and I stand by the report’s conclusions.
What would bar you from having a wholly independent review?
There is nothing to stop me or the cabinet secretary commissioning an independent review—
Is that a suggestion that both of you will take away to consider following today’s committee meeting?
I said at the start of today’s discussion that we were keen to ensure that the evidence led us to whatever conclusions were required. On the basis of the report’s conclusions, I do not think that further investigation is required.
But an independent review could speak to people who have not been spoken to during the compilation of the SQA’s review, so it could come up with slightly different recommendations. All that I am asking is whether that is something that you and the cabinet secretary will consider in the light of the evidence that we have received and the discussion that the committee has had today. Will you at least consider that?
I am satisfied with—
So you will not consider that. It is a straightforward question, to which I need an answer.
That is something that I can take away as feedback from the committee—
And consider?
—in conversation with the cabinet secretary.
Will you consider the suggestion? I do not know what is difficult about saying that you will consider it.
I am happy to do that—
Thank you.
—but I also need to make clear what I have said in relation to the conclusion of the review and my satisfaction with the conclusion of the review, on the basis of the evidence that was presented. Therefore, I do not consider an independent review to be necessary.
I would like to make a point about the evidence that was gathered for the review. An increasing amount is being made of the fact that we did not speak to anybody beyond the people who were most closely involved in setting standards for higher history this year and of the fact that we did not speak to learners or to other teachers.
The starting point for the review was that we listened to learners, to teachers and to others who expressed concerns about the standard that was set in higher history. That was the evidence that gave rise to the review. The review set itself a number of questions to answer, which are set out very clearly in the report. The fundamental question was whether the standard that was set in higher history this year was different from the one that was set last year.
Having set that question—this would be the case with any such review—we then needed to determine what evidence would help us to answer it. I and my colleague who worked most closely on the report considered what evidence we needed. The evidence that we needed came from the process of setting standards for higher history this year. Had we gone to speak to teachers and learners, we would have heard expressed the concerns that led to the review in the first place. What we needed was not more of that evidence, but evidence on the standard-setting process. We listened very—
That is why—
We considered very—
Mr Ware! That is why I believe—this is a personal opinion—that an independent review would have been better. You are using the word “we” a lot and talking about what you think. It would have been better if you had assembled that evidence in the construction of the review. Cabinet—
If you will allow me to—
Thank you.
I will bring in the cabinet secretary.
The evidence base of the report has not been in contention today—I have not heard that from members. However, I am happy to hear from history teachers. I did that through my engagement with SATH, but I put on the record again that I am keen to hear from history teachers directly on the issue. The evidence base that I have been presented with and which we have discussed throughout today’s session does not tell me of the challenges that you have spoken to today, convener, and it does not necessarily reflect some of the other views that you have heard. However, I do not discount those views, and I am more than happy to hear from those teachers.
Thank you.
Finally, Ms Robertson, I will read you two quotes from teachers. One says:
“I have never been so demoralised about the state of history at SQA level”.
The second, which is from an experienced teacher writing in The Herald, states:
“what we have recently experienced with the SQA has been nothing short of a national scandal”.
Will you apologise for this?
Those are the views of two teachers, who I am sure are concerned about the performance of their learners. The report highlights the variety of views. We have sought to take forward an evidence-based report that cuts through perception and opinion and ensures that learners have the right result. That has been my focus. I am happy to apologise if something has gone wrong, but we undertook the review to see whether anything had gone wrong. There are some recommendations and improvements that we can make, but it is really important that we cut through some of the anonymous commentary and, given the responsibilities that we have to learners, ensure that our attention is on ensuring that they get the right results. That is what we will—
Of course, some anonymous commentary is whistleblowing, which is crucial to ensure that we get things right for students and teachers going forward.
Cabinet secretary, Ms Robertson and your officials, I thank you for your time today. I believe that individual MSPs may want to discuss more issues, but I am grateful that you have come to the committee to discuss the matter with us. Thank you.
13:47 Meeting continued in private until 13:51.