Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful. I gave the caveat that there was a significant increase in reality, irrespective of what the Electoral Commission’s snapshot survey showed.

Does anyone believe that bringing forward the deadline for applying for a postal vote might have slightly reduced the number of people who eventually applied for a postal vote? I am reminded that 4,000 postal vote applications were received after the new, earlier deadline. What work was done with individual voters who applied for a postal vote after the deadline to remind them that they could have a proxy vote and that there were other ways to ensure that their democratic mandate was exercised?

I echo the convener’s comments about the excellent work that went into planning the election and making it safe, secure and credible. Those who worked on the day—certainly those at the count in my constituency—did exceptional work. I sure that that was the case in all members’ experience. It seems a little churlish to scrutinise some of the aspects to see how we can improve things, but I just wanted to give the context that I firmly believe that the elections went incredibly well in hugely challenging circumstances.

It seems churlish to ask about why we did not do better in relation to postal votes. Twenty-four per cent of voters applied for a postal vote, whereas the previous figure was 18 per cent. However, 38 per cent of voters said that they wished to apply for a postal vote, although that did not happen. Why was there that difference between the numbers of those who indicated that they wished a postal vote and those who actually took the steps to apply for it?

I accept what you have said, but I am not sure that you have told us whether there was a consistent approach across Scotland to contacting those who applied after the deadline for postal vote applications. Perhaps Malcolm Burr or Chris Highcock can say more about that.

Obviously, it is for the Electoral Management Board and the Electoral Commission to take a view on whether that would be a worthwhile exercise. I know that our convener will ask questions on turnout shortly. In relation to maximising turnout, as we know, if someone has a postal vote and does not need to turn up in person, they are much more likely to cast a vote. That is one way of making sure that turnout is maximised in areas in which there are low-income households, which are traditionally less likely to vote. Any data that can be provided would therefore be welcome. Alternatively, if such a data set does not exist, perhaps the Electoral Management Board or the Electoral Commission could think about ways of creating one.

I can see that Seamus Searson wants to come in, and I am keen to hear from him. I will put my final question, and perhaps he could respond to both my questions, if that would be okay, convener.

I am interested in Mr Mundell’s line of questioning, because it gets to the heart of some of what we are talking about. We need clarity about what happened rather than snapshots of attainment. My understanding is that, in historically challenging circumstances, the attainment gap technically closed in both 2020 and 2021, compared to 2019 and previous years. Is that the understanding of our witnesses?

There is another important point. Does some of the difference between 2020 and 2021 have to do with the role of internal moderation procedures, whether those are departmental, whole school, local authority or across local authorities? I would like to better understand the moderation procedures that existed in local authorities in 2021 compared to those used in 2020.

One of the issues, of course, is that, without an exam—as unsuitable as those are for many young people—you do not have that benchmark. In 2020, we did not have that benchmark to refer to.

I am interested to know about 2020 and 2021 compared to 2019 and previous years, and I am also interested in the role of moderation in schools at a local authority level in 2021 compared to 2020, because that might flush out some of the issues.

Of course, the lockdown from January to March clearly had a massive impact. It might not be ACM that led to that differential; it might have been that January to March lockdown. I am interested to know the witnesses’ views on that, too.

There is lot of confidence in the robust processes that underpinned the alternative certification model for 2021. There will always be room to improve that model, but it is consistent across the country.

There was, however, a contradiction in some of the SQA guidance in relation to there being a reliance on exam-style evidence but there also being an encouragement for schools and departments not to have traditional exit-style exams. We heard from young people that, in some schools, they got a large exam and, if they did not meet the standard, they got a second exam and then a third exam—so they got multiple opportunities to prove that they had reached the standard. Unfortunately, the process was top heavy in the last few weeks. What guidance did your local authorities give out about what best practice looks like in relation to unavoidable assessments in those last few weeks, and is there need for greater consistency? There seems to be a bit of a patchwork experience across and within schools and local authorities.

Do you recognise that moderation is not about second guessing but rather about providing professional support and assistance to assure the professional in the classroom?

I want to focus on the year ahead. We know that there has been a reduction in course content to support teachers and learners in the coming year. We have heard that more details are to be provided of what alternative scenarios might look like if there is disruption to schools—that is likely to emerge in October. I want to ask our witnesses what they think should happen—God willing, this will not arise—if there is additional disruption to schools. Should more course content be taken out? Should we revert to a revised form of the alternative certification model? What would that look like? I get that teachers, learners and parents will want to have that information as soon as possible. Ross Greer mentioned that the predecessor committee was keen to get a bit of assurance on what the contingency arrangements would look like at the earliest opportunity.

Going forward, for the individual academic year that we have just commenced—I know that larger systemic changes are planned—what would you like to see happen if, unfortunately, there was additional disruption?

I should put on record the fact that I am a former secondary school teacher and a former member of the EIS—in fact, the EIS might still be taking my subscriptions. I will need to check that.

All the witnesses have said that they agree that a moderation process is needed, and that that is important. The issue is to do with the extent of the moderation, the burden that we put on teaching professionals and the proportionality of the process. I think that everyone is wedded to the idea that moderation is important.

Mr Flanagan said in his submission that moderation provides teaching professionals with additional protections. Seamus Searson said that a teacher might think that a pupil was working beyond what evidence they had, but the opposite can also be true—a teacher might think that a young person is working at the level of a C grade but the young person might want to achieve a B. Unless teaching professionals can provide an evidence base for how they reach their professional judgments, I can see them getting into all kinds of difficulties. I would like Mr Flanagan to say more about the protections that moderation provides to teaching professionals.

In my constituency experience, I found that difficult conversations had to be had between teachers and young people when young people were informed what grade it was thought they were working towards, which might not have been the grade that they aspired to. There needs to be a lot more good-quality direct communication between teachers and pupils on such matters.