Official Report 866KB pdf
Welcome back. We move on to our next agenda item, which is an evidence session with the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History on the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s “Higher History Review 2024”.
I welcome the witnesses. Joining us remotely is Kirsty MacDonald, the faculty head of social subjects at Paisley grammar school and president of the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History. Joining us in the room are Rebecca Hanna, who is a teacher of history and politics at Linlithgow academy, and Andy Johnston, who is a history teacher at Ross high school. Both are committee members of SATH.
Your microphones are operated remotely, so you do not need to worry about them. I understand that Kirsty MacDonald wants to make an opening statement, so we will go straight to you.
Thank you for having us. I really appreciate the opportunity to come here to share the point of view of history teachers and to have a voice as part of this process.
As you mentioned, Rebecca, Andy and I are members of the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History, which is a voluntary association. Ours are not paid roles and no additional time is given to us to fulfil them. They are not elected roles—we are volunteers.
We are practising history teachers, and the evidence that we give today comes from our experiences as practising teachers, although it really comes from the conversations, opinions and experiences that have been shared with us through our authority networks and staff networks, and through a variety of other means. We will do our very best to represent the different points of view and to share what we can as honestly as we can.
I just wanted to share a little bit of context surrounding the survey that was shared with the committee. The survey was carried out following the conclusion of the SQA’s investigation and the continued questions and the continuing discontent surrounding the higher history exam. On one hand, it was a response to the continued questions that were being asked, and on the other hand, it was a response to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills asking for a response from SATH.
The cabinet secretary did not ask for a survey, but I felt that that was the fairest way of representing the views of everyone and measuring the extent of the concerns, as the accusation had been made that those were just the voices of a few teachers. We really wanted to have the evidence to know the extent of the issue and to give everybody the opportunity to have their opinions heard, read and seen. Obviously, social media and other media had generated a lot of commentary on the issue and we wanted to give everybody the opportunity to speak.
It was also hoped that it would be an opportunity to identify a clear path forward, and to ask history teachers what we need, how we will move forward and how we will ensure that it results in positive change. I hope that that opportunity is taken.
As you will be aware from the results of the survey, they reflected continued concerns about the 2024 higher history results. Arguably, the key issue is the drop in marks in paper 2, which was quite significant.
Concerns were also raised regarding communication and the culture at SQA. Coming through the survey and people’s responses is a lack of confidence in the exam and in the SQA. There is also a real sense that teachers are now feeling a lack of confidence in their own ability to deliver the courses. That situation cannot continue. We are not in a good place.
The survey also contains feedback from those who felt that the exam and the process was fair, and who expressed concerns about the way in which the issue has played out in the media, including on social media. Undeniably, it has been a divisive issue, but the majority of responses have come from teachers who feel that there are issues and who have concerns.
The results of the SQA’s investigation have not been accepted by a significant number of teachers. A number of questions still remain. One of the key questions seems to be why other subjects did not see a drop, if that was down to an impact of Covid and to do with literacy.
There are many issues going on in school that impact on young people and on attainment, but the questions that are being asked are really about the cohort effect and why similar drops were not seen across the subjects. Lots of people are questioning the lack of parity across subjects, especially in similar subjects to ours, and the discrepancies between paper 1 and paper 2.
Since the closing of the survey, there has been more communication with the SQA. We have met, and there have been action points. However, at this point, we are still at the stage where a lot more is needed in order to learn from the mistakes that have happened and to acknowledge that there are issues that need to be addressed.
The key point is that we do the right thing by our young people. We are not in a good situation right now in terms of how teachers are feeling. The uncertainty cannot be allowed to damage the chances that our young people will do well. We do not want our subject to be damaged by the situation.
Thank you very much for that opening statement.
There is a lot in there that we will get into. I will first put this question to Kirsty, then we will go to Andy and Rebecca.
When did you first become aware that there was an issue? I made the point to Fiona Robertson when she appeared before our committee that it seemed to take many weeks—indeed, months—before the SQA launched its review. Did you know on exam results day that there was a major issue that would have to be thoroughly investigated, or did you think, at that time, that it was maybe just a blip?
We knew on exam results day. The data is released, so we could see the comparisons, the drop and the breakdown of the components. It was, therefore, immediate. The significant drop in paper 2 is really the issue.
The committee has discussed how variation happens. There is a lot of evidence on which I can understand how the SQA has looked at it and said, “Well, we see those increases and decreases.” However, we were aware from exam results day, and teachers started to express concerns from that day, that the results were an issue.
Were you surprised that there was not an immediate reaction from the SQA and Fiona Robertson? Why did it take so long for them to be almost dragged kicking and screaming to do the review? There are still concerns that the review was not wholly independent, but what took so long?
“What took so long?” is a question for the SQA to answer.
I tried to get an answer on that one, in fairness.
Yes. [Laughter.]
In answer to the convener’s question, yes, I was surprised that there was a delay in responding, because the reaction on social media was immediate.
One of the things that perhaps needs to be remedied is that teachers should not have to take to social media to express such points and to give feedback to the SQA. Although I appreciate that people can email or get in contact in a variety of ways, there perhaps needs to be a more formal method of gathering feedback from teachers and being transparent about what teachers are saying and what the next steps will be.
I was surprised that there was not a response sooner to the concerns that were being raised, particularly in relation to the big drop in results across paper 2.
Andy and Rebecca, did you have the same perception—did you immediately see that there was an issue?
Yes. It was not necessarily on results day for me, because results days are during the holidays and I do not always look at them. However, on our first day back, we sat down as a faculty and department to analyse the results. The difference between our estimates and the results that had come through was shocking.
Immediately, you look to yourself and think, “Did I not teach this right? What have we done wrong?” but then, as I was texting other people who teach similar topics, including at schools where I have worked previously, I was finding that there was the same pattern—their results had also dropped dramatically. It was the case at more than one school, so there was clearly a pattern emerging.
On that point, Rebecca, and also on what Kirsty said in her opening statement, did you see the cohort of pupils that you put forward for higher history suffering in the same way in other subjects? One of the defences from the SQA is that it is actually the case that there were poorer standards across the board, but did you see that being reflected across other subjects?
I will answer the first question first, then come to the second.
I had an inkling before the results came out that things were not as they could be. Although I did not mark this year, after the paper 2 markers meeting I heard on the grapevine that markers had given feedback to colleagues in our local authority to the effect that they felt that there had been a change in the marking standard and that things had been tightened up.
However, that was just a rumbling, and nobody had any sense of the bigger picture. Markers simply mark the packs that are in front of them, so it was not until the results came out, on results day, that we saw the impact of what I had been hearing about in rumblings—that is, that things had changed and were tighter. My inkling came sooner, ahead of results day.
On the convener’s question about the impact on this year’s cohort, I note that different topics were affected differently. In paper two, which is the focus and the one that we are discussing, I teach the wars of independence topic. A minority of children study that. The vast majority of pupils sit the migration and empire topic. There are five options in paper 2, and that is the topic that seems to have been most affected.
However, I can speak to some numbers in my local authority. The number of children who got As in session 2022-23 was 31 per cent in my local authority, and that fell to 18 per cent in one year. The number of pupils who got As or Bs went from 57 per cent in 2023 to 38 per cent in 2024. The number of pupils who got As to Cs went from 77 per cent to 57 per cent. The number of pupils who got no award whatsoever went from 11 per cent in 2023 to 26 per cent in one year. That means that one quarter of pupils in our local authority who teachers put forward for higher history got no award. The impact on this year’s cohort seems to be quite significant, based on the data that I have seen.
Those are stark and alarming figures. Have you ever seen anything like this? Is there any comparison that can be made?
I cannot think of a comparison.
Fiona Robertson mentioned variation across other subjects and used examples of subjects where there had been a drop, but there was nothing like that.
We do get variations and fluctuations. Over the years, anecdotally and from what I have seen, some topics seem to be marked a little bit more harshly than others. This year that seems to have been the issue with marking of the migration and empire topic, which is done by 72 per cent of pupils. That is why the results have been affected on a national scale.
I have certainly not previously seen a change such as that in one year. Data must exist somewhere that would allow us to see whether pupils sitting higher history have performed better or worse across all of their subjects. At our school, we can see that our pupils have done worse in higher history than they have in other subjects that they have taken.
As Kirsty MacDonald said, I would like to understand why only history has been affected. I would like to know why our pupils are feeling that higher history is harder than other subjects and what to say when they wonder whether they should be taking geography instead. I would like to know why higher history seems to be affected.
This a question for you all. Has the issue been resolved as far as you think it is going to be resolved? The SQA seems to think that, since it was peer reviewed by someone from Wales, its independent review is the end of the matter. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has suggested that it is. However, she said in the chamber a couple of weeks ago that she was going to continue communication with you and with members who are interested.
Ultimately, a cohort of students went into that exam in good faith and, based on the communication that I had have had, came out at the other side without the marks that were expected of them. Do you think that we need to look at the marks that were allocated and reassess last year’s exam paper and the results?
That is such a big question. I do not even know where we would begin. The children who have been affected might have gone to university, so that would be a huge undertaking, but something terrible seems to have happened last year, based on the data.
We are living with the implications now. Advanced higher classes have collapsed and children are having to repeat. However, I do not think that it is a simple issue in this particular year, or that one marking decision was made one time: lots of reform is needed.
As Kirsty MacDonald said, the teaching profession does not feel confident that we understand the standards, and that has come across in the survey. I certainly do not feel that the issue is done and dusted or that we all feel great. We have had two “Understanding standards” sessions, which were offered by the SQA, and based on the feedback on those, I would not say that teachers feel enlightened by them.
We will definitely come on to that.
Rebecca covered what I initially wanted to raise, which was that at school level, we see fluctuations in results. As a faculty head, when the results come in in August, I would look for that and my headteacher would want to speak to me about it. As a teacher and as a faculty head, I would, if we had a 13 per cent drop in pass rates, have to explain those results to my headteacher. However, I would have data from insight that would tell me about the strength of my cohort. If most of my candidates got a C, I would know how they did across their other subjects. Surely, information exists at a national level to tell us how candidates who sat higher history performed across their other subjects. That might provide further evidence to resolve the matter or move forward.
On whether the SQA is involved in revisiting the grades, as Rebecca Hanna said, we are now at the end of January, and the upheaval of having a second independent review would be enormous, but the situation has raised questions about the whole system.
In the previous meeting, Fiona Robertson said that the SQA carried out that investigation because it was its job to do so. That is correct, but should it be? Where does the body exist to regulate what goes on and to provide answers that would be accepted?
11:30Part of the issue is that people do not accept the findings of the review. Even while it was being done, the commentary started that the SQA was investigating itself and that it was going to say that there were no problems. The regulation and the checks that exist protect the team, but it has been stressful for everyone involved. History teachers have been involved in the processes, and that has raised an issue that needs to be addressed: it needs to go further. As Rebecca Hanna said, reform is needed and the exam itself needs to be considered. There should not be such a gap between the results of the essays that our pupils write and the source paper, so we might have to revisit that.
Changes were made in 2018-19, and there has been a period of real instability since then. The exam was changed in 2018-19, when 20 additional marks were added and the exam went back to being two separate papers. Arguably, the level of demand increased in 2019, but we then went into the Covid years, with exams being cancelled.
We are now at a point at which it is important that there is some kind of a major review of what the course looks like, that we make sure that teachers are involved in it, and that teachers feel that they have agency and a voice. Moving forward, we need to make sure that teachers have confidence in the system and in the exam, and that our learners should study our subjects. I do not want people to steer young people away from history because they feel that it will not be accessible to them.
You are right to say that our now being in January makes revisiting last year’s results difficult, but it did not necessarily have to be so difficult. If the SQA had taken immediate and prompt action, there might have been an opportunity to revisit the results in late summer rather than in January 2025. I want to press the SQA on that issue.
There were some stark comments in your review that were picked up by the press and others. Some of your members called the SQA’s independent—as it would call it—review a whitewash. They said that it was brushing things under the carpet. One of them said—I quoted this in the chamber a couple of weeks ago—that it was
“the most biased and useless investigation I have ever seen a public body attempt to pass off as legitimate”.
Those are not just small concerns. There is a feeling of fury among history teachers about what has happened and how it has affected them and their students, as well as about the way in which the investigation into everything was handled by the SQA. Is it fair to say that there is still a huge amount of anger, frustration and dissatisfaction among your members towards the SQA?
Yes, I think that that is true, but it stems from a bit further back. You are right that people have said that it is a whitewash, that it was biased and everything else. The comments are very blunt and to the point.
The SQA has made mistakes in the past and not just this year and, as people have said, matters have been swept under the carpet and ignored. People took to social media about it, but nothing happened. Now, because there was such a large cohort, it is the straw that has broken the camel’s back.
I think that it was two years ago that the topic was the wars of independence, and a question was asked that should never have been there, because it did not meet the course specifications. This year, in migration and empire, there was a question that did not meet the course specifications. The topic was not in the curriculum and nobody would have taught it because it was not expected of them, but the question was there. It was a 10-mark question. The paper was marked out of 36 in total, divided into two 10-mark questions and two eight-mark questions. Asking a 10-mark question, which is the biggest question there is, on a topic that was not within the course spec, is handicapping the children dramatically.
My understanding of that is that there was a question based on something that had been removed from the syllabus. It is almost as though a bank of questions had been written years ago and the question had been pulled out of that bank, but there had been no quality assurance before it went into the exam paper. Is that what you are trying to explain to us? Is that correct?
In short, yes. There was a question about the reaction of Scots to Irish immigrants. That is no longer on the course spec. It used to be and we all used to teach it—I did, in passing—but it is not there now. We did not expect it to come up in exam papers, so it has been taken from somewhere. Questions do not just appear by magic. The papers go through several checks at different times, but that question was not picked up in marker checks, item checks or writer checks. It was put in front of our candidates.
A lot of other members want to come in, and there are issues that I want to come back to.
Finally, what has the SQA’s response been to your survey and its responses? In an update to SATH members on your meeting with the SQA, you said:
“Reopening the investigation, admission of fault or changes to the pupil grades for 2024 were not on the table.”
Therefore, the SQA has parked the issue.
Please say so, if you cannot answer this, because I know that you are here as teachers and representatives of your profession, but what was the SQA’s response to the survey being published and then removed because some names had not been redacted? Was it reasonable, and did it say, “You are all volunteers and these things happen”? Were the response to your survey, and its issues with it, acceptable or reasonable?
When the survey was published, it was initially shared with the SQA, Scottish Government representatives and the history teachers who had contributed to the survey. It was shared on our Teams page and Facebook.
There was a very quick turnaround: I met the SQA and Scottish Government representatives on the following Monday. That meeting had been requested, and it was now December, so there was a sense of urgency about the issue.
At that meeting, the focus was on the action points and how to move forward, so there was no suggestion that there would be any further investigation. The results of the investigation had been accepted and there was no discussion about changing the grades. There was agreement on some of the points, such as the need for greater exemplification and the need to understand standards, so some of the issues were addressed.
You are referring to what followed that meeting. On that Friday, I received a formal letter from the SQA that informed me that the name of a member of the team had been published in the survey that had been shared. Publishing the name was an oversight on my part, and I take personal responsibility for that mistake. It should not have happened.
I anonymised the survey for history teachers; the same courtesy should have been afforded to the SQA team. There had been a quick turnaround. However, what has now followed has been a period—[Inaudible.]
Conspiracy theorists could suggest that that was a strange time for the feed to call it a day. [Laughter.] We will wait a second to see whether Kirsty can come back in.
I am sorry, Kirsty. Your sound cut out. We got to the point when you held your hands up and said that you had made a mistake, and that you had given history teachers the courtesy of being anonymised but not the SQA. You told us that you had received a letter and were about to tell us something, but the screen went totally blank. We could not hear any of the part that followed, so could you repeat that bit?
I am so sorry—that is due to the school’s wi-fi.
The issue has now become contentious, and what personal data will be shared has not yet been resolved with the SQA. I have redacted people’s names and job titles, but the SQA has made comments about a number of things that it is unhappy about being publicly shared.
I was asked to issue an apology, which I gladly did, because I hold my hands up—it was an oversight—but the wording of the apology has gone back and forth. I am frustrated that we cannot deal with the criticism head on, move past it and actually focus on the survey’s content and what it is telling us.
Staff were given a little bit of a hard time in the survey, but the responses are people’s opinions, which must be accepted. We have to learn from them and consider how we will get better. My personal feeling is that the survey needs to be shared as it is. Names and job titles need to be removed, but there are comments in the survey that do not identify individuals. The SQA is a public body, so people should be able to express their feelings and refer to teams or to its leadership. There have been issues with sharing a new version of the survey, following its initial sharing.
I find that quite shocking. I understand names having to be redacted—that is acceptable—but the SQA is a public body and it should be accountable. It has been in front of this committee and others. I am extremely concerned if it is now seeking to vet further parts of the survey that you conducted. It was not the SQA’s survey. It might be unhappy with elements of it, but it should not be trying to sterilise it in any way to reduce the criticism. Where does this end up? Could it become a legal matter?
It has been mentioned that unions have been involved and there is a possibility that we should seek legal advice. As a small association that is run by volunteers, we do not have lawyers, so there has been a bit of a fear that, if we share the information without removing the comments we have been asked to remove, we could find ourselves in a position that we do not want to be in.
Okay. As I said, I find that concerning. We will hear what other members think. We will come back to those points, but I will now bring in Ross Greer.
Good morning. To summarise, the SQA’s process review came to the conclusion that it had not done anything wrong and young people had underperformed. For the purposes of my line of questioning, let us accept that premise, even though we may not accept it outwith this line of questioning. To me, it felt like half a review. The SQA got halfway towards finding out what happened but, as soon as it realised that, in its view, it was not the SQA’s fault, it stopped.
When I asked Fiona Robertson about that, she appeared to be of the view that it was not the chief examiner’s role to find out what happened and why young people underperformed in those circumstances, or that it is not the SQA’s job to find out why there is a particular drop in a particular subject at a particular time. That has to be someone’s responsibility in the system, though. To be fair to the cabinet secretary, she said that it is ultimately her responsibility. In practice, though, the cabinet secretary cannot be the one who delves into individual issues with individual subjects every year to ensure that a crisis point is not reached.
I am interested in hearing your views on where in the system that responsibility should lie. Should it lie with the chief examiner or is there someone else in the system who should be responsible for investigating why there is underperformance, if we accept that that is what happened here? Personally I do not accept that but, for the purposes of this question, who should be responsible for finding out the reasons for sudden drops in performance in particular subjects at particular times?
The history team would be able to identify fairly quickly, ahead of results being published in the summer, if there is a sudden and dramatic drop, and questions should be asked at that level. That should possibly inform decisions about grade boundaries, so it should be identified ahead of the grade boundary meetings.
I would like to think that, if there is the level of outrage that was expressed in August when the results were published, the SQA would be able to take responsibility and investigate in a thorough way that does not just look at the results and involve talking to the higher team that is involved, but maybe involves talking to teachers and markers as well.
In an ideal world, the SQA should be able to look into these issues. However, it would need to listen to everybody’s views rather than only those of a very select number of people who ultimately have responsibility for the examination in the first place and whose backs need to be covered. It needs to listen to other people’s views, too.
Have you had any indication since the SQA’s review was published that it is genuinely interested in finding out what happened? If we accept the premise of the review, which was that the young people underperformed, have you picked up from SQA senior management that it wants to know the reason for that or are you under the same impression that—frankly—I am, which is that, as soon as it felt that it could take itself out of being responsible, its responsibility for the process also ended?
I will give you my personal view, but it is very hard to answer for everybody. The survey that was published and then had to be recalled raised a huge number of detailed issues in advance of the “Understanding standards” sessions. You said that you will come back to them, but the very specific issues that teachers raised were not addressed at those sessions.
If it genuinely thought, “There’s a problem here—teachers aren’t confident delivering this part of the course or this element of the paper,” and there was a genuine desire to fix things and identify the problem, it would be listening to what teachers are saying and that would be what was addressed when it spoke to teachers. In my experience so far, I have not seen evidence of that.
11:45
I will go back to your original point, Mr Greer. Reading between the lines, if the SQA is saying that the pupils have underperformed, that means that the majority of teachers are saying, “That means that we’ve underperformed. How do we get better?” The SQA did not have any answers to that. It does not give us the scripts after the exams, so we do not know where students fell down or where they achieved well. We do not see any of that. Markers’ meetings are held behind closed doors and not everyone is a marker. If you are a marker, you know; if you are not a marker, you do not know—unless you know a marker. The information is not readily there, and the SQA still does not seem to be forthcoming. We will talk about the “Understanding standards” meeting—I was there—but the SQA still does not seem to be forthcoming.
I have asked for very specific things. I asked whether qualification, briefing and practice scripts that are given to markers at the markers’ meetings could be shared, so that teachers at large can understand what the standard is. Clearly, there is a feeling that standards are shifting and we do not get it. Some 75 per cent of history teachers feel that they are not confident in delivering the standards. That was not addressed. The response was a very vague sort of, “Hmm, we’ll see,” but that request was not answered clearly. Why not make those materials available? I do not see why that should not be done when that material exists.
I was on our predecessor committee eight years ago, when we did a review of the SQA’s performance, and that specific point was brought up: that kind of information is not provided unless you are at a markers’ meeting; it is not provided to the workforce overall. There were clear conclusions, and recommendations were made, but those have not been implemented, and we are now at the point of having to abolish and replace that organisation. It had umpteen opportunities to address those issues. However, I am conscious that I am beginning to stray into other members’ lines of questioning, so I will finish there.
Some of what I am hearing this morning deeply worries me, not least the threat of legal action that Kirsty MacDonald spoke of and the impact that the situation has had on young people, learners and teachers. We know that the SQA has a bit of difficulty in recruiting people to mark. Are you surprised about that?
I had a local authority network meeting last Friday afternoon with all the history teachers in my local authority, and the question was asked whether anyone was marking. The vast majority of experienced markers, who have done it for years, said, “Absolutely not.” It is too stressful and there is a lack of goodwill towards the SQA, which is very damaging. If we are going to move forward, we need to do that together, but the ability to do that does not currently exist. One new marker, who marked for the first time last year, said that she would renew her contract. She said, “How else am I meant to know whether they’ve changed what’s expected of us?”
At what point did the lines of communication—if there ever were any—fail?
That is a difficult question to answer. As Kirsty MacDonald said, I feel that we need to be quite careful, if there is a potential threat of legal action, but I believe that this issue goes back many years. I can think of many instances, going back to 2019, of issues with parts of the exam papers and teachers raising issues and those being brushed under the carpet or, worse, people being—I do not want to say “silenced” because that sounds very dramatic, but people were discouraged from marking and told to return scripts. I can think of examples that go back years of problems being raised and those being dealt with in a way that has been very damaging for relationships between history teachers and the SQA.
It is important to say that this is not the first survey that SATH has done along these lines, but it is the first one to have been published. With regard to the previous survey, it was asked that that not be published. It was not published at the time, with an idea of goodwill, and—
Who asked for that not to be published?
Members of the SQA.
So you have previously done a survey, which the SQA looked at, and it then asked you not to publish it.
Yes.
Do you think that the only reason why it was published this time is perhaps that the cabinet secretary came in front of our committee and said that she would share it with us? The SQA was kind of boxed in at that point, was it not?
I think that I should step in here, because that was during my tenure as SATH president. In 2020, when the Covid measures were put in place, the SATH secretary suggested that it would be a good idea to put out a survey to see how people felt about them, and one of the questions was whether there was anything that SATH could do to make things better. We felt that it was a fair survey, but as president, I got a phone call from someone at the SQA expressing their displeasure that it had not been run past the SQA first. They were very unhappy, because they felt that it had undermined what the SQA had put in place.
I was, at that time, a marker. I was part of the higher history team, but I am not any more. It put me in a very difficult position, and it was my choice to withdraw the survey. We did not publish it; I wish that I had, but I felt at that time that it was creating a tension between SATH and the SQA, and I did not want that. On a personal level, I marked for the SQA, I worked with the team and I did not want to lose my position there. Pulling the survey was on me, and I regret that.
You should never be put in that position. We have discussed this before: you are volunteers. You represent your fellow history teachers. Surely the SQA would want that survey published and to be out there in public so that it can be held to account and so that it can improve. You should not in any way feel regret for having done that—the ones who should be regretting it are the ones who put you in that position in the first place.
I am sorry, Kirsty—I know that you wanted to come in on Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question, too.
Yes, Pam asked about marking and moving forward, and that is something that I am very concerned about for my young people this year.
The rate of pay for marking, once tax has been taken off, is not great. It is a bit of a slog, it is not particularly well paid, and teachers do it for their own professional development and so that we can prepare our young people. However, I echo what Rebecca Hanna just said: I fear that the lack of confidence in and the bad feeling towards SQA is going to impact on experienced teachers and experienced markers in particular, some of whom have said that they do not want to come back and do that work. I do not really want my young people sitting the exam and then having it marked by inexperienced markers.
I also have the concern about the markers’ meetings now moving online, which is not really a satisfactory way of having the kinds of discussions that markers, particularly new ones, need to have. I feel that the meetings need to be face to face, and the SQA needs to address that issue. I know that the findings of the investigation talked about gathering feedback immediately from the markers’ meetings, so that it is not waiting until the end of the marking period.
I am concerned about there being enough markers, whether a number of those markers will be inexperienced, and whether an online markers’ meeting is sufficient for markers to feel confident and ensure the consistency that needs to be there when the marking process happens.
Rebecca Hanna shared her previous experience with a survey. You have asked why this particular survey was shared—there was perhaps some naivety on my part. I had been on maternity leave so, until I had some discussions quite recently, I was not aware of the whole situation. In my mind, I thought that the survey should be shared, despite the fact that there were unfavourable things in it. I acknowledge its impact on the SQA team, who are obviously history teachers, too, and I understand that this has been very stressful for them, but there needs to be a platform for teachers to be able to have their say, and we need to be able to address those criticisms and not sanitise and tone things down.
Those are my feelings about that.
I have one further question, convener, if that is okay. Again, I repeat that I am deeply worried about what I am hearing.
The SQA said that this was just a difference of opinion between professionals. If I am being honest, I think that it sounds like a bit more than that, from what I have heard both today and previously. What is your response to its view that this is just a difference of opinion and—to bed in what it said in its review—that nothing was wrong, really, apart from learners’ performance?
I would point them to this year’s results and the associated data. Everyone has a different opinion—and Kirsty MacDonald, Andy Johnston and I have different shades of opinion—but the data speaks for itself this year. The experience of markers speaks for itself, too.
Thank you.
We have not met before, but you do not strike me as dangerous revolutionaries. You come across to me as teachers who care deeply about the subject and have the interests and wellbeing of the young people and the wider ecosystem at heart, and you seem to be telling us that your relationship with the SQA has been strained for some time.
What steps were taken to try to resolve that relationship breakdown? Has the chief examiner of the SQA been involved in that effort? Clearly, it is a long-standing issue that needs to be elevated to a higher level in order for it to be resolved. It cannot carry on like this—the situation seems to be unacceptable. So, as non-dangerous revolutionaries, can you tell me, how do we solve the problem?
Kirsty, perhaps you can talk about the communication that you have been involved in.
Absolutely. The communication with the SQA has largely been done through me, which means that it has been through a member of the team, but not the higher history team—that is, not Fiona Robertson. However, there has been regular contact, with me acting somewhat as a go-between.
Prior to the survey being released, I was in talks with members of the senior team in relation to attendance at our conference. Going back years, the SQA was always represented at our conference—we always had a good relationship whereby its representatives would come along and give us information and support. However, the investigation and the delay of the course report derailed that, so we did not have any representation from the SQA at our conference this year, and have not had for a good few years now.
The SQA has expressed a willingness to work with us on communication. Yesterday, we had a conversation about the survey and agreed that the back-and-forth situation is not good, and that we need to move forward.
It is true to say that the relationship has broken down and needs to be fixed. However, at the moment, I am not sure what that would look like or how it would happen.
I want to follow that up. In a professional setting, it would be down to both parties to sit down and have a conversation. You are telling us that your relationship with the SQA has broken down, that you have serious concerns about the situation and that all that you want is better communication between yourselves and the SQA. As Willie Rennie said, you are hardly being revolutionary; you just want better communication so that you can prevent some of the problems that Andy Johnston described. The SQA suddenly starting to talk about lawyers and solicitors just because you have put out a survey is hardly going to help to rebuild an open and transparent way of working.
Obviously, things will change when the Education (Scotland) Bill comes into force and there is a different organisation in place. Is that a point at which you might be able to try to rebuild the relationship and move forward? You do not seem to be asking for a lot—you just want involvement in the process and to ensure that you get the best for your pupils. I cannot see why the SQA has a problem with you. Am I looking at it the wrong way?
You are not wrong. We want that relationship to be positive, we want communication between ourselves and the SQA and we want teachers to feel confident in the SQA. We are certainly open to moving forward and to sitting around the table to have conversations. There needs to be broader communication—not just with SATH and the committee, but with the wider range of history teachers.
As I said, a member of the SQA leadership with whom I have been in contact has expressed willingness to work with us, and I hope that, following today’s committee meeting, that will happen, that there will be some positive communication and that some of the issues will be taken on board.
The fact that the situation has become divisive has been stressful. Some of the comments about the culture and some of the experiences that people have had are really concerning.
12:00
I will play devil’s advocate for a moment. In some of the information that we have received, there have been some suggestions about the teaching of history, including that, traditionally, it has been taught by rote, with kids memorising specific things that they are expected to include in the answers to questions, no matter what. We were told that, in 2024, a couple of sentences in an answer were exactly the same—word for word—as those in an answer in 2019. I am just wondering whether there is a problem that has arisen just this year, and all the other years were okay, or is it the case that all the other years were not really up to standard and now things have become a bit better?
Andy?
Thanks for chucking me under the bus with this one, Rebecca.
A lot of people have come to me and said that history is rote learning. My response to that is, unfortunately, that the exam process involves a two-term or three-term dash, depending on how the schools arrange things. We have a lot of content to cover. If we covered all the content, we would cover 12 essays—six of them in a British context and six in a European and world context. We are talking about covering hundreds of years of history, plus a whole separate paper that is a source paper that relies very heavily on knowledge, as well—the majority of the marks come from knowledge rather than source-handling skills. I accept that a lot of people say that the subject involves rote learning, but at times there is no other way to do it.
Does that result in pupils having knowledge of a few subjects rather than wider knowledge? Earlier, you said that a question should not have been asked about Irish immigrants to Scotland. However, that is a major part of our history. I expect 17-year-olds in Scotland to know something about that, especially if they are in the west of Scotland.
I agree with you 100 per cent. The reason why I said that it should not have been asked is that it was not in the course specification.
As I said, I still teach my pupils about the reactions that Scots had to Irish immigrants. Coming from Northern Ireland myself, I can tell them a lot of stories and make it interesting for them. I still teach that but, because it was not in the course spec, newer teachers who have not been teaching as long as I have will not have covered that, so their pupils would have been blindsided.
I am just thinking this through; I do not really have a position on it. Is it wrong that the course spec is so specific? Does it have to be specific, because of the exams?
Someone emailed us to say that they thought that they could guarantee that certain kids would get high grades because of the input that they gave them. That worries me a bit, because we want the kids to be thinking, and not just being trained purely to get through exams.
The vast majority of history teachers are passionate about their subject. They do not want to say, “Here are five bullet points—go and learn them.” That is not what the history teachers whom I know would do, and that is certainly not the history teaching that I am aware of. We care deeply about our subject. We want the kids to do well and we care because we want them to be passionate about history and to enjoy it.
Rote learning is not a feature of our classrooms, but we have to get through a certain amount of content. One of the things that comes across in the survey is the fact that lots of people feel that higher history needs to be reviewed with a view to listening to what history teachers have to say. A lot of people feel that it is harder than other social subjects, which means that there is a certain amount of pressure on us. We need to have a discussion about higher history and whether it is working, but I do not believe that rote learning is, by and large, happening in our history classrooms.
Another thing to consider, although it is not within the purview of this committee, is that not all schools have the same amount of time to teach higher history. Andy Johnston has six 50-minute periods a week but I have only five, which means that my pupils have almost an hour a week less than Andy’s. All our schools are different, and, in certain circumstances, teachers must be quite selective about what they teach and how best to cover the content quickly.
We have identified issues that came through in the survey when we asked what changes teachers felt were needed in order to improve the course and assessment at higher level. When asked whether the course and assessment were fit for purpose, many teachers answered that it is not, which is concerning.
On the point that you are making about rote learning, there are concerns that the amount of content in the course is steering it towards rote learning and, as Rebecca Hanna said, that is not how we teach or want to teach. However, when teachers are dealing with an extremely content-heavy course and are under time pressure, ensuring that their pupils do well in the exams can come at the expense of the quality of the learning and teaching. That is something to be considered.
Thirty of the people who commented felt that there was too much content, and that that led to rote learning, with an impact on independent thought. As history teachers, that is not what we want. We want our pupils to be developing their higher-order skills of analysis and to be able to make judgments and think critically about information. We are not in the business of asking people to memorise screeds of information.
Eleven respondents felt that there was too much emphasis on structure in the exam, and that that was disadvantaging some learners who had the knowledge but perhaps did not structure their answers in quite the right way.
Thirteen respondents commented on the literacy demands of the course. That theme is relevant to the drop in performance that Ross Greer was asking about. Literacy was mentioned a lot in that regard and, as history teachers, it is concerning to see young people coming through who seem to be struggling with the literacy aspect. However, we want to be bringing them up to the appropriate level: we do not want to dumb things down. Getting the approach right requires careful thought, so there must be a really in-depth review in order to get it right for our learners and our teachers.
There were comments about too much detail being needed per mark, and about the fact that that does not marry up with other social subjects, in which learners need to do less to pick up a mark. There were suggestions about how that might be countered. You have identified something that history teachers are feeling frustration about—we do not want to be teaching by rote learning.
The idea that an exam must include only the things that are in the course spec might make it sound like we are teaching by rote learning, but we are in a content-heavy subject, so we need to be able to tell our learners what they could be asked about and how to approach particular questions. That is part of what we do, as teachers.
I want to touch on literacy, because there has been a claim that the outcomes that we saw in the 2024 history exam results reflected falling literacy standards. We cannot see the performance of candidates across the subjects but, anecdotally, would the English teachers in your schools say that the same pupils who did not perform well in that history exam also did not perform well in English? Have you had conversations with them about that? The fact that we cannot benchmark those pupils’ performance means that that sort of anecdotal evidence is all that we have to go on.
In my school, pupils performed worse in history than they did in English. We speak quite a lot about declining literacy standards, but it did not seem to be an issue with regard to higher English exam results, as it has apparently been in higher history.
The situation was exactly the same as that in my school.
In my context, comparisons across subjects revealed that the learners who did not achieve passes struggled across the other subjects. We had concerns about whether the cohort would pass this year, and we had our lowest-ever pass rate, although the cohort performed better in history than in other subjects.
That is my experience, but the survey has revealed that there are anomalies across schools in Scotland that do not really make sense. I happened to have that weaker cohort in front of me. In response to the question, I say yes—the candidates who did not do well for me also did not do well across some of their other subjects, but that is not the case in every school and is not the experience of every teacher.
Publication of the survey might present more evidence on the issue, if it was part of the questioning that you took up with your fellow teachers.
What you have said today is quite depressing. This episode has been depressing. I cannot imagine what it is doing to motivation, apart from making people not want to be markers or have a positive relationship with the SQA. I hope that the Education (Scotland) Bill’s direction of travel can rebuild that confidence.
Have the Scottish Government and SQA listened to your concerns? From what you have outlined, it does not feel like that; it feels more like they want to move on and want the issue to go away. I do not think that that is good enough. From the conversations that you have had and communications that you are having with SQA and Scottish Government, where do you think things now stand? I asked the cabinet secretary whether she would look at doing a wider investigation if other teachers came forward with issues, and she did not rule that out, but we have not seen any progress on that to date.
Have they listened? To a degree, yes they have, but more needs top be done on all the issues that have been raised. More needs to be done in respect of where we are just now. We appreciate having the “Understanding standards” materials—albeit that we have them later than they were needed—and the course report, but more is needed.
The survey has obviously thrown up bigger issues and, as we have discussed, I feel that the exam and the course spec need to be reviewed, and that teachers need to be engaged more. The cabinet secretary talked in the previous meeting about teachers being a part of the new qualifications Scotland body, but that involvement needs to be real and meaningful, and not just a tick-box exercise.
That will take time, so to be fair to the SQA and to anybody who is involved in fixing the situation, it will not be fixed overnight. There is no magic wand. At the moment it the case that although the SQA and Scottish Government have listened, more needs to be done, and I hope that that is recognised.
You have hit the nail on the head in that there is a feeling of “We’ve covered this; let’s just move on. We don’t want to hear any more.” An article that was published in TES, which was authored by the principal assessor and co-authored by a senior member of the team, referred to history teachers voicing concerns as “unedifying”. That concerns me greatly, because it is like saying to history teachers, “We don’t want to hear it. Stop it—you’re bringing the subject into disrepute.” We care about our children, we care about our subject and we should be able to voice concerns in good faith. It suggests to me that there is a desire to sweep the issue under the carpet.
Kirsty MacDonald has had to write four different versions of an apology, and we are still at an impasse over the survey. There are 13 critical comments that the SQA wishes to be removed before we publish the survey. That does not speak of an organisation that wants to work with SATH or Scottish history teachers. It is a difficult situation.
In your experience, has this happened in other representative volunteer organisations for other subjects? Are you the canary in the mine, and is it the collapse in the results that have identified the issue and created this conversation? An adversarial culture has been allowed to develop.
I have not heard of this happening elsewhere, and we absolutely do not want it to. Kirsty has worked very hard to be as moderate as possible. Last autumn, we were not as critical as some people feel we should have been, and the survey reveals that many people feel that we were not strong enough in pressing that. We have tried very hard to be as constructive as possible.
You said that the Scottish Government and the SQA have listened to a degree. The convener said that the cabinet secretary said that she would carry on communication. Is that the case? Are you still engaging with the Scottish Government? What is the situation?
12:15
Thank you for your question. Yes, that is the case—after this committee meeting, I have a meeting with the cabinet secretary, so those lines of communication are open.
I will follow up on that with few more points. A couple of weeks ago, at portfolio questions on education and skills, the cabinet secretary said in the chamber that she had had further discussions with you, and it is clear that there will be more.
Is the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills aware that you have now written four drafts of an apology to the SQA, which have not been accepted? Is she aware that the SQA is looking for 13 further redactions? Is the cabinet secretary fully apprised of that?
Currently, she is perhaps not aware of that detail, but I shared with Scottish Government representatives the request for the survey prior to this committee meeting. I shared apologies for the delay with that, as well as for the fact that there was a little to-ing and fro-ing and what the context for that was.
I have not directly discussed the matter with the cabinet secretary, but I expect that that information has been passed on and I imagine that it will form the basis of part of the meeting that we will have soon after the committee meeting today.
Rebecca, I will go back to your point about the letter that appeared in TES the night before Fiona Robertson and Jenny Gilruth came to the committee. It was put to us that the letter had been authored by the two individuals because they wanted almost to set the record straight, as if what we had been hearing and reading in the public domain was not correct.
What are your members’ views of that letter and its contents? Did it genuinely seem to come from people who had at heart the best interests of the higher history exam and history departments, or did it seem to be more a blatant defence of the SQA?
That is a hard question for me to answer, because I have worked with the higher history team and the two authors of the letter for many years. I am very fond of both of them and I hold them in a great deal of respect. I felt that the article was written in good faith. I believe that they genuinely care about the subject of history and its position and reputation.
My feeling is that there is, to a certain extent, an echo chamber. If high-up members of the higher history team are discussing things with each other but not listening to ordinary history teachers, they would genuinely believe what was written in that article. I do not believe that it reflects the views of Scottish history teachers; my phone was buzzing all night with people furiously quoting parts of it at me. I feel that it lowered morale and was misjudged. That suggests to me that there was no real attempt to listen to the genuine concerns of history teachers, although I feel that the article was genuinely meant.
Let us get into the “Understanding standards” sessions, which I mentioned in my opening questions. I have received quite a lot of correspondence about them over the weekend and earlier this week.
I want to get this right in my head. The SQA sent out information to the effect that it was using those events as one of three additional things that it would take forward to ensure that more support and resources were available into the new year for teachers and lecturers who are preparing candidates for higher history in 2025.
In today’s evidence session, we have been looking back a lot, but we are now just months away from this year’s cohort going through the exam process. Some parents are raising with me concerns that the problems of last year’s exam have not been resolved, so they are worried about this year’s cohort.
As I understand it, the “Understanding standards” sessions have not gone down particularly well. It has been raised with me that not everyone could get to the first of the two sessions, and some of the important issues that were raised at session 1 were not repeated at session 2. Therefore, there is a mixture of people who have the information and people who do not. Worryingly, information that was promised as part of the sessions has still not been made available some time later.
Is that a fair appraisal of teachers’ concerns? They went along to the events in good faith. Another one is scheduled, I think—
Yes.
—but the material that will be offered will not be the same. I was told that the responses from the SQA were very defensive at times: they toed the party line and, when questions were asked about something that was not on the syllabus—I asked Andy Johnston for clarification about this, then John Mason went into the matter in more detail—the response from the SQA was, “We cannot discuss operational matters.” Surely, that is a crucial point that teachers should be able to discuss with the SQA. The SQA tells us and others that the events are to help teachers to prepare for this year’s exams, but then the teachers get blanked with, “We can’t discuss operational matters.” Is that a fair reflection of where your members are with the “Understanding standards” events?
Yes. I attended both the events that have happened so far. Other members of my department were not able get spaces, which was frustrating. The SQA was prepared for some questions but, as I mentioned earlier, it was not prepared for queries on matters that had come up in the survey as issues that history teachers have—things like, “We are not sure of the standard on X, Y or Z.”
One particular issue that came up in our survey was the standard that is required for a three-marks-out-of-three conclusion in a particular type of essay. I know that that was asked about directly at the markers’ meeting last year. Questions were also asked about it in the chat during the “Understanding standards” event, but they were roundly ignored. An example was given at the event of a two-marks-out-of-three conclusion, and many people asked what else would be needed to give it three marks. There was no clear answer to that.
That is just one example of what the experience was like: questions were posed but were not necessarily followed up on.
I attended only one of the two events that have happened so far. At times, it felt very chaotic, which, for our—
People speaking over each other?
Exactly. The team leaders were speaking over each other and cutting each other off mid-sentence when they were trying to give an answer. It was pandemonium. The chat was going off—it was mental. At times questions were largely ignored—or, worse, one team leader would answer a question then, five minutes later, another team leader would answer exactly the same question. They were not even paying attention to what was happening.
The examples that they gave were taken from the wars of independence and migration and empire topics, which were the two biggest topics that people might have had issues with. However, again, they were not able to give us examples for every component of the syllabus, which makes people wonder whether such examples exist, as some people said to me afterwards. As I said, it was pandemonium.
I left the event thinking that I agreed with the examples that they had given but, knowing that my pupils had reached that standard in their prelims the previous year, I did not know how they had not picked up those marks. When I went to the event, I had hoped for help to prepare my pupils who had sat their prelims in January—I was hoping that I would come out thinking, “Right. I know exactly what’s happening.” I am no further towards knowing that. I think that I have taught them what they need, but the SQA could turn around and say, that I have inflated the standards and am making them do more. I genuinely do not know exactly what my pupils need to do.
I reiterate how important the events are: the great solution to this year’s problem was to run extra “Understanding standards” events. We have had two of three events and the message that I got was as clear as mud. That might not be everybody’s impression, but it is certainly the impression of the vast majority of people to whom I have spoken. If those events are the solution to teachers not understanding the standards, the solution is not working.
I got an email this morning from someone who was passing on comments. They said:
“Our members in schools are still raging that the webinars and materials from December and last week”
that are held by the SQA
“have still not been put online”.
Those who could not make it to the sessions are in the dark. As I mentioned before, they said that the SQA seems to be in “a defensive position” rather than trying to get the materials that teachers need to prepare their students.
As you said, the events were designed in response to significant concerns, but if that is the best that the SQA can come up with, it is clearly not delivering.
Was the SQA’s qualification manager present at the meeting for higher history?
She was present at both events.
Did she engage?
She did not speak. She did not address the group, but you could see that she was there. The meetings were held online, so you could see who was present.
Her camera was off, and she did not engage.
The qualifications manager who, for many months, has been heavily involved in that issue and the exam issues was simply listening rather than trying to put across what she and members of her team would seek to give you to help you with your students.
She was just a name at the side of the screen—she did not address us.
We have spoken a bit about culture. Kirsty MacDonald mentioned it in her opening statement, and Rebecca Hanna bravely told us of her experience—I am very grateful to you for sharing that. Culture comes up time and again, including in emails that I have received, and you mentioned it just now. Is there a culture problem in the SQA? If you do not want to answer, do you feel that you cannot answer? We could draw our own assumptions from that.
I will answer that. I do not believe that everybody would say so, but I personally believe that there is a problem. I am not speaking from my experience, although I could. I know of a number of people whose headteacher was, after the person had voiced concerns, contacted by someone from the SQA asking that the teacher be disciplined for voicing concerns about higher history. In both cases, which were in two different parts of the country, I believe that the headteacher said, “Absolutely not—this person is expressing their views.”
I have heard stories of people who have been asked to return their marking or have been fired as markers because they have expressed dissatisfaction with standards or said that they believe standards are changing or unclear. That is a very difficult culture to speak out in. It is not a culture that I think is positive.
In my experience of marking, I did not encounter that negative culture, but I have heard other people talking about it, and people have mentioned it to me in passing. I have a young family, so I stopped marking a wee while ago because it took up far too much of my time, but I am still in contact with many friends who mark. They have mentioned that they do not want to say anything because they do not want to lose their positions, because they find it extremely valuable to help to ensure that their pupils are well prepared for the exam. They are scared to say anything.
Rebecca and Andy have answered the question well, but as you say, such comments and concerns have come through in the survey. The thing that I find most stressful about the situation is that we, as professionals, are not able to deal with it. The comments from the survey that I have been asked to redact are typically the comments that say that there is a culture problem, and they use words such as “toxic”.
I am concerned by our being asked to remove those comments, because if there is a problem with the culture, that seems to reinforce it rather than to challenge it. There is a need to allow those comments to be made, then they need to be proved wrong, and not simply removed from the record. The nature of the comments that I have been asked to redact typically refer to the information that has been shared by Rebecca and Andy.
I have marked for the SQA. As Rebecca does, I know some members of the team—not well, but I know them through the events—and I have always had positive experiences. I respect many members of the team, and it is quite upsetting and distressing to give this evidence, knowing the impact that it will have on them, but we have to be honest in what we say. The culture question is coming up again and again, so it needs to be addressed.
Thank you for sharing that. As I said, we have looked back a lot on last year’s exam and the impact that it had on students. What impact is the situation having on your current cohort of students, who will face the exam very soon? Have the “Understanding standards” events delivered what they should have delivered? I understand that many questions were put into the chat because people were not able to get involved, but they have gone unanswered. Is that correct? Are you and your fellow history teachers still seeking answers to many outstanding issues just months away from your students taking the exam?
12:30
At the most recent event, the principal assessor said that he would look at any questions that came up in the group chat and that he would provide answers. That is a positive move, and I look forward to it.
Do you have a timescale for that?
No, I have no idea.
As for your question about this year’s cohort, it is very difficult. As you have seen from the evidence, teachers do not feel that they understand the standards. I have been teaching since 2006 and I have been marking higher history since—I want to say 2011, but it has certainly been a long time. I have questions outstanding; I am not confident.
As teachers, we are very concerned. We are working our socks off. However, our local authority has put history into what are, essentially, special measures. We have to set targets, show that we are doing things differently and measure how much impact we are having. All the stress from all the new materials that are being developed and so on must going on to our pupils. They must be feeling it, too, because we are constantly assessing whether we are getting this right. If we are not quite clear about the standard ourselves, that makes things very challenging.
Put yourselves in our pupils’ places. I have lost count of how many times I have said, “I’m not sure if this is the exact standard. As soon as I find out, I’ll come back and tell you.” They have sat their prelims, but I have pupils who have not got their prelim results back yet and are telling me, “Nah—I’m just dropping higher history, because I can’t do this.” No one is even willing to say to them that they are only two points away from getting a pass. The pupils do not want to do it any more—they cannot do it. How demoralising is it for pupils to sit there and hear that their teacher does not have a full idea of what they are expected to do? We look incompetent at times, as a result.
That is because you are not getting the information that you need.
My follow-up question was to be to ask how this is impacting on people who are presenting for higher history this year. A lot of your faculties and so on have probably brought history and modern studies together. Are teachers advising pupils to study modern studies rather than history? Is the concern so big that some pupils are being put off studying history at higher level, because of what has happened?
I am sure that that is the case—thankfully, though, not in my school or in my faculty. We are all quite tight-knit and quite honest. If a pupil’s strengths lend themselves more to one subject than to another, we will tell them so, but we are not actively putting anybody off and saying, “This one’s too hard.”
However, it comes down to the pupils, too. When those who are doing national 5 talk to the ones who are doing highers, those pupils will say, “It’s too hard”, then the nat 5 pupils say, “Right—we’re not doing it.” The impact is felt there, too. It is not just that members of staff—including senior management, pupil support staff and so on—are putting pupils off during the curriculum review: other pupils and their peers are saying, “I don’t have a chance at this, so what chance do you have?”
I should say that a number of schools in my local authority reported that their senior managers had been stepping in and saying, “At course choice time, maybe don’t take higher history—go for something easier, instead.” Not one, but a number of schools in my local authority reported that those discussions are happening, so you can see why we are concerned about our subject.
Kirsty, do you have anything to add?
I asked at the end of the survey whether people had anything to add, and what they added made for really depressing reading. The comments were coming in as the survey was on-going, and I was reading them as they came in.
As has been mentioned, it is a depressing situation. It was really hard to read how anxious some teachers were feeling, and how angry others were feeling. They referred to low morale, and to feeling that they were not able to do their job or that they were not competent as a result of the situation. Some even mentioned that they were thinking of leaving teaching, which sounds really extreme. When you get comment after comment from people who are feeling worried and anxious, or are feeling that they cannot do the right thing by their learners, that is really hard to read, and it really needs to be remedied.
We do a tough job. Teachers work very hard in challenging circumstances, and we have to feel that we have the support that we need to deliver the qualifications and get our young people the qualifications that they need to take their next steps. The feelings that came through in the survey—the anger, the frustration and the anxiety—were hard to read, and they are there to see. I am not talking about just a couple of people: this is coming through again and again, and it is really concerning for me.
Thank you very much. I know that this might not have been the easiest session, given what you have had to present to us, and I understand the relationships that you have with your fellow history teachers and people working within the SQA.
However, your evidence was extremely fair and balanced—I also think that it is damning for the SQA. Some of what we have heard today should make for extremely uncomfortable listening for those who are at the very top of the SQA, and I have to say—as other members have—that I am deeply alarmed and concerned if elements of your survey that are critical of the culture within the SQA continue to be hidden from wider public view. We have to know why those at the top of the SQA are seeking to do that.
Again, I thank all of you for your time. I know that we have overrun, so I want to thank Kirsty MacDonald’s colleagues at school, who stepped in to allow her to stay with us a bit longer. I thank Andy Johnston and Rebecca Hanna for coming to Parliament, too.
This is an issue that the committee has taken a keen interest in. I know that the cabinet secretary will be following it up, as Kirsty MacDonald has said, but on behalf of the committee members, I genuinely thank you for your time and your evidence.
12:35 Meeting continued in private until 13:01.Air ais
Scottish Youth Parliament