Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that Ms Robertson should provide the context first.

I think that we have received one such complaint since the appeals process closed.

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.

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.

I hope that committee members have refreshed themselves with the publication of an article that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement yesterday.

Which part of the report do you not agree with, Mr Ross?

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.

No, I did not instruct the review.

Yes.

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—