Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, and apologies if I was asking you to go over old ground; I may have missed a part of that, as you are aware.

I will move on from that to the involvement of teachers specifically. A former history teacher has contacted me and others—members around the table and across the Parliament will be aware of the concerns about a higher history paper, as I know the SQA is as well, as you have highlighted that in your letter of 23 September to the committee.

One comment that that individual made was on what they saw as the change in the marking regime:

“It’s absolutely criminal and clearly largely due to a change in the standard for the Scottish paper made during the marking process and not communicated with schools.”

Another—a teacher from a forum—said:

“I heard a horror story from a teacher who was forced out from marking in 2023, after questioning what was going on.”

What is your response to that, and will you set out how the profession is currently involved in the development and review of current qualifications?

It is Liam first.

Good morning to the witnesses. Thank you for the information that you submitted in advance. I found it really helpful, as were the comments that you have made.

I will pick up on a couple of things that have been said. I do not know whether any of you followed the earlier panel’s evidence, but one of the questions that I asked Fiona Robertson was about the history paper. I have a question based on what I just heard from Stuart Hunter and Graham Hutton.

The approach that the SQA has taken to addressing some of the concerns that have come out of the history paper is to hold an independent review, using teachers who are markers to independently review the marking. Stuart Hunter, is that appropriate and does it demonstrate a change in approach?

I put on record my apologies to the convener, other committee members and the panel for my slightly late arrival this morning. I was stuck in traffic. I am really sorry for any disruption that that might have caused.

On the point about confidence, I want to share a few aspects of the evidence that we received, which I am sure you will have read. After that, my question will be for Fiona Robertson.

In its submission, the EIS said:

“The actions of the SQA have inflicted significant damage upon its relationship with the profession, which now largely views the organisation with cynicism and suspicion.”

The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association has said that the SQA is “adrift” from teachers, and School Leaders Scotland has said:

“We ... question why the Chair of the SQA will automatically become the Chair of Qualifications Scotland”,

because

“those involved cannot transfer lock-stock and barrel to the new body”.

Given that, and given what you have just said, do you accept that public and teacher confidence in the organisation is not what it should be?

Do you mean confidence in the history paper in particular or in general?

Good morning, Professor Muir. Thank you for the information that you submitted in advance and for the answers that you have given so far.

I want to ask about the issues of structural change and cultural change. A number of respondents to the committee have suggested that there is too much focus in the bill on structural change and insufficient focus on cultural change. In your report, you talk about the shift in mindset and culture that is required. What is your response to that? Could you elaborate on what you think needs to be done to address the cultural change that is needed?

I have one final question. Is there anything missing from the bill?

Do you think that the bill as drafted allows for that or are there mechanisms that need to be changed in order to drive the culture change?

Do you think that the bill, in its current form, will drive the bottom-up approach that is needed or is it still a top-down approach that is being taken?

Thank you. I appreciate that.