Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes.

That is no problem. The mental health awareness award is excellent, so I am glad that that came up and is on the record.

The study guides that were produced this spring have been mentioned a number of times. I am sure that you are aware of young people’s criticisms of many of those guides. They felt that the advice was patronising. For example, the guide to the advanced higher modern studies paper encouraged young people to make sure that they answered the question that was asked in the exam and the guides to the higher physics and chemistry papers reminded them that it is always a good idea to spell words correctly. The guide to higher geography told them to read the question. Do you accept that some of the content of those study guides was patronising and was not of particularly high value to a 17-year-old?

In that case, the issue here is an initial communication failure. Can I check how young people were involved in the development of the revision material? You have young people on the national qualifications group and you have a learner panel. How were they involved in the construction of the material? Did they at any point flag up that it was perhaps a bit patronising to say that it is a good idea to spell words correctly?

I understand that, for example, the specifics of an exam paper obviously cannot be shared in advance, but there is nothing compromising about sharing in advance that the paper is going to encourage young people to spell words correctly.

I will pursue that point about reflection. I have sat on the education committee for six years, and, five years ago, the committee produced a major report on the SQA under Fiona Robertson’s predecessor. A consistent point of criticism of the organisation has been that there is a perceived defensiveness around external feedback, advice, criticism and so on. We went through that when Cameron Garrett, who was the first member of the Scottish Youth Parliament on the national qualifications group, was critical of how young people were treated through that process. Sophie Reid, who succeeded him, is now being critical of a lack of communication and a breakdown of trust.

I am going to pre-empt your answer somewhat and presume that you will say that there has been improvement over recent years. However, if we accept that premise, why do you think that nobody else sees that improvement?

Just—

I accept that some courses were modified more than others or were modified in significantly different ways. In hindsight, would it have been better if the study materials that you published in the spring had re-emphasised the modifications that had already been made to some courses, rather than publishing some guides that seemed, on the face of it, much thinner than others?

I absolutely agree that some of the revision support was of really high quality. I think that it was the variation that caused a lot of frustration for young people who—

If you had shared that with them in advance, some concerns might have been raised.

It is just a yes-or-no question, so, if there is time at the end, that would be ideal.