In common with many countries around the world, Scotland had to cancel its examinations and to rely on teacher judgment as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The young people and their teachers who have worked so hard and who have achieved so much in such difficult circumstances are to be applauded.

It may not be popular to say this just now, but the pressures such sudden changes have put on examination boards and the many teachers who work with SQA also have to be recognised. They have had to generate, trial and test, then implement a new system in a matter of months when normally such changes take many years.

It is little surprise that the results are causing so much controversy because the stakes for young people are high. Every year in Scotland the examination results prove contentious. If the results improve, standards must be falling; if the results decline, the education system is failing. Rarely is either true. However, any approach to assessment where the implications are so significant for individuals and their families should, and does, come under significant scrutiny.

SQA exams results day 2020: Poorest far more likely to have Higher pass downgraded

See how SQA results day panned out: Live blog

‘Exam results’ in the Covid era: ‘Sense of injustice on whole other level’

John Swinney: There is a ‘strong argument for reforming exams’

Teacher assessment has much to commend it - the teacher is able to gather evidence about more of the curriculum, knows the young person, is able to collect evidence over time rather than a single snapshot. Having teacher judgements be consistent, not only within a school but across every school in the country is a major challenge for countries internationally. For the system to be fair, teacher judgements need to be consistent nationally.   

Research on teachers’ estimates indicated that without moderation, this year’s results might not only have been inconsistent, they might have been far too generous. Work undertaken by Cambridge Assessment argued that approximately 45 per cent of teachers’ estimates were consistent with national standards. In that context, the evidence from the recent SQA reports indicating that 75 per cent of teacher estimates remained unchanged presents a very positive picture for the professional judgement of Scottish teachers. If the perception had emerged that this was the year when results were inflated, the consequences of that for this year’s young people could have been very damaging.

There is also research evidence to point to differences in teacher judgement that relate to gender, class and ability. It is crucial that due attention is paid to those to ensure that young people are treated fairly.  

And that is where much of the current controversy lies. Were young people attending schools in areas of disadvantage further disadvantaged by a system that used historical data from schools as part of the process of moderation? No method of assessment is perfect. External examinations suit some young people who thrive on the pressure - others find the pressure unbearable and struggle to cope.

Crucially, the controversy on the use of historical evidence to contribute to the moderation of this year’s results has not yet focused on the fact that the historical evidence was created from the results of examinations. The exam system consistently reflected a pattern of achievement where young people in schools in areas of disadvantage performed less strongly than young people in more affluent areas. Suggesting that this year’s system address Scotland’s long-term societal problems is a big ask.

What is clear from the historical examination evidence is that our examination system has largely maintained the status quo and improvements to narrowing the poverty-related attainment gap have been slow. The evidence from this year is that the gap once again is narrowing slowly, but if we want more than this slow progress we need to take a more radical look at the senior phase in Scottish schools. 

Louise Hayward (University of Glasgow) and Jo-Anne Baird (University of Oxford) are independent academics - both are professors of education - and do not speak on behalf of their institutions. They are members of a number of advisory groups, including SQA’s Qualifications Committee, but are not employees and do not speak on behalf of SQA