Scotland’s results fiasco in August could have been “at least partially avoided”, an independent review has found.
Even so, it appears that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) still stands by the hugely controversial moderation process that led to students taking to the streets in protest, and ultimately led to a dramatic U-turn from the Scottish government.
The review, carried out by the University of Stirling’s Professor Mark Priestley and published today, notes that the “SQA has stated to us that there is no regret in respect of the moderation approach used this year”.
The review report adds that the body did regret, however, that the full process it had designed - including the appeals process - was not allowed to run its course “as this component was designed to deal with the sorts of problematic results that generated such an intense political and media focus after results day on 4 August”.
Also today: National 5 exams cancelled amid coronavirus fears
Background: ‘Sense of injustice on whole other level’
Related: SQA says ‘We did what we were told on results moderation’
However, the review points out that while the application of the appeals process - or the “post-certification review” (PCR) process - “offered an in-principle technical solution to address these anomalies, it paid insufficient attention to the severe impact on those students obliged to undergo it”.
The controversy over SQA results
The review says the SQA failed to consider the impact the process would have on students’ mental health and wellbeing, as well as the opportunities they stood to miss in terms of their next steps, including securing a place at university.
The review - which acknowledges the “impossible situation” that the SQA and the Scottish government were faced with - also finds that “the statistical approach to moderation could have been more transparent earlier in the process”.
It says that warnings were “raised repeatedly” from April onwards about “the equity implications of an over-reliance on a statistical approach, premised on comparison with historical cohort data”. But these warnings “seem to have been under-emphasised by both the government and SQA until late in the process”.
The review states: “There has been an erosion of trust/confidence in SQA amongst teachers and young people, and damaged relations in some cases between young people and their teachers.”
It adds: “Our overall assessment is that, despite the extremely difficult environment for decision making, there are points in the process where different decisions may have led to better outcomes and at least partially avoided the controversy that ensued in August 2020.”
The review also finds no evidence of teachers experiencing pressure to enhance their estimates. It continues: “Indeed, we have seen evidence of the converse, as schools were cautious in their allocations, and as local authorities in many cases moderated estimates downwards.”
However, it does find that estimates were “subject to variation (in the types of evidence available, the processes followed for internal moderation and the support given by local authorities), which has impacted on reliability and consistency of assessment at this stage”.
It states: “We note that variance in approaches to moderation by [local authorities] does not seem to be exclusively linked to size/capacity - some of the most thorough systems were evident in small [local authorities].”
The review makes nine recommendations, eight of which have been accepted by the Scottish government, including that National 5 exams in 2021 should be cancelled. The review says N5 was “not a leaving qualification for the majority of candidates, and therefore less high-stakes for most” and also that cancelling N5 exams would give more room “for the arguably more important Higher and Advanced Higher examinations”.
The review also recommends that “a nationally recognised, fully transparent and proportionate system for moderation” of teacher and school estimations be developed that is “‘owned’ by teachers”.
The full report can be found here.
