When the chief executive of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, Fiona Robertson, appeared at the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee last week, she was asked why the SQA carried out the review into the Higher history pass rate this year - rather than the task being given to an independent body.
Her answer was straightforward: the SQA carried out the review because “it was our job to do so”.
That is because the SQA both awards qualifications and regulates them.
Different approaches in other parts of UK
In other parts of the UK, that is not the case: in England and Wales, exam boards such as the WJEC, Pearson Edexcel and AQA set and mark exams, but this process is overseen by regulators, Qualifications Wales and Ofqual.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development recommended the Scottish government put in place a similar structure in its 2021 report on Scottish education.
Professor Ken Muir also recommended this in his 2022 report about how the reform of bodies, including the SQA, should be taken forward.
He said that the SQA’s accreditation and regulation directorate should be housed in the new agency for Scottish education - in other words, it should become part of the remit of the new Education Scotland that will emerge next year, when the inspectorate is removed and becomes an independent agency.
Unlike other recommendations, this one was less likely to grab the headlines. Therefore, when the Scottish government rejected it in November 2022, saying it planned to retain both functions in the new qualifications body - although with strengthened independence from one another - the opposition was fairly muted.
More recently, however, it has been suggested there is “a growing consensus that separation would bring confidence” - as Willie Rennie, the Liberal Democrat education spokesperson, put it during a meeting of the education committee in October.
Undoubtedly, the Higher history debacle - which saw teachers blame a 13.1 percentage point drop in the pass rate on changes to marking standards - has contributed to that growing consensus.
This week, the results of a survey carried out by the Scottish Association of History Teachers (SATH) into the fall in the pass rate, and the subsequent SQA review, were shared with Tes Scotland. It attracted responses from 174 of the roughly 1,000 history teachers working in Scotland, according to the 2023 census.
In total, 75 per cent of the teachers said their students did not perform as expected in the 2024 Higher exam; 82 per cent said the cohort was similar to previous cohorts; stronger, or significantly stronger in terms of ability.
Criticism of SQA investigation
They described the SQA investigation, which blamed a weaker student cohort for the drop in pass rate, as “shambolic”; “hugely flawed”, and “a brazen attempt at gaslighting”.
A major sticking point for teachers is that SQA carried out the investigation, not an independent body.
In the SATH survey, one teacher says this is “staggering”; another describes the SQA review as “the most biased and useless investigation I have ever seen a public body attempt to pass off as legitimate”, given it was “largely completed by those who were implicated in making the decision”.
The research also reveals the issues with Higher history extend beyond concerns about the way the exam was marked this year, with two-thirds (116 teachers in total) saying they do not believe the Higher history course is fit for purpose.
They talk about students “rote learning” essay responses and the exam “hindering” independent thought. They say it is “vastly easier” to get an A grade “in any of the other social subjects”; history “has become elitist”, and “is being slowly suffocated”.
From fewer students passing the exam to complaints that Higher history has become too hard - these are the very issues that an exam regulator might opt to investigate.
For example, in summer 2024, Ofqual instructed exam boards to make adjustments to grading standards for three GCSE subjects: computer science, French and German.
It said that in computing, the evidence suggested “standards may have become slightly more stringent through the period from 2014 to 2019”.
Education secretary responds
Now, Ms Gilruth is hinting that more consideration could be given to the fears that SQA is being allowed “to mark its own homework”, to lift a phrase from Professor Muir’s report.
In a communication with the Scottish Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee sent yesterday, she says education reform provides “an opportunity to improve the oversight of our qualifications”.
She adds that the government is “open to considering additional, practical and cost-effective measures that can further enhance the strengthened provisions in the Education Bill”.
However, despite saying she appreciates the need “to rebuild trust and confidence” with history teachers, there is no mention of an independent review.
Having awarding and regulation in the same body is undoubtedly the cheaper option - Professor Muir acknowledged that in his report.
However, he went on to say any benefits of integrating the two functions were “significantly outweighed” by the need to restore trust and confidence in a “revitalised single qualifications, examination and awarding body for Scotland”.
Ms Robertson is increasingly delivering a similar message. Last week, she told the education committee that she stood by the review into Higher history carried out by SQA, but that if current arrangements were damaging public confidence it was “legitimate to question those arrangements” - that was “a matter for the committee and for the Scottish government to consider”.
In other words, should it continue to be the SQA’s job to “mark its own homework”?
For the latest in Scottish education delivered directly to your inbox, sign up for Tes’ The Week in Scotland newsletter
