Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?

Absolutely—that is something to consider for the wider reform programme, not just for history.

Yes—hostage to fortune and all that.

Does anyone else want to come in on case workload?

It says a lot about how we do governance reform in Scotland that multiple integration processes have led to more fragmentation.

The Scottish Government would agree with you on the challenge of annual funding settlements, which is also a significant challenge for it.

Do Fiona Duncan or Claire Burns have any final comments on resources before I move on?

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 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 really positive and helpful. I am sure that we all look forward to seeing that. The committee is well used to people coming to us to apologise for delays, so it is positive to hear that that is on track. We will probably want to follow that up in the new year, once we have had a chance to look at the framework.