Teachers have accused the SQA of ‘moving the goalposts’ and subjecting students to an ‘unfair’ marking process over this year’s results for Higher History.
Hitting out after the publication of exam results at the beginning of August, they said a different approach to marking some questions is behind a drop in the overall pass rate and a steep drop in performance for individual parts of the exam.
The SQA insists that its marking approach was "consistent with previous years."
Recent exam results for 2024 show that the overall pass rate for Higher History fell significantly compared to last year. Teachers have expressed particular concerns over the compulsory Scottish History paper, where the average national mark fell from 20.6 in 2023 to 15.2 in 2024 – a drop of more than 25 percent in a single year.
According to a number of teachers with experience of marking for the SQA, students had to be much more specific when answering questions than has been the case in previous years. However, teachers themselves had not been made aware of this change prior to the exam, meaning that they had no opportunity to inform students that their answers would require more detail.
In an online post seen by The Herald, one teacher says that the SQA “can’t keep moving the goalposts without telling us.”
Others were critical of the way in which the overall marking process was handled this year, with one saying that their experience was “awful” and another describing being dismissed when raising concerns about the apparently new approach.
Discussing the events that took place this year, one teacher and marker (who spoke to The Herald on condition of anonymity) said: “It was a sh*t show.”
“New principal assessor and marking team. The standard seems to be all over the place.”
On the decision to require more detailed and specific responses from students, they added: “They were looking for so much information for one mark. One of the examples had five different bits of info to get the one mark.”
An individual who has held senior positions with the SQA said that the steep fall in average scores and pass rates “is honestly criminal”. They argued that it is “very clear that there has been a big change in the standard required this year, especially in the Scottish paper.”
READ MORE
The SQA has already faced criticism for its handling of 2024 exam results after overall pass rates fell while attainment gaps rose to record levels. On results day, an IT failure also meant that thousands of students initially received results emails that were blank.
Despite the criticism from teachers, including current markers, a spokesperson for the SQA dismissed concerns, claiming that the approach in 2024 was "consistent with previous years".
They added: "At Higher level, knowledge points are expected to be detailed and used in response to the question."
Asked if action had been taken once the SQA realised that scores were much lower than previous years, the spokesperson said that they had used "well-established procedures and considered the impact of return to full course assessment."
They also said that grade boundaries were "adjusted accordingly".
Some markers have said that they would have raised their concerns publicly, but are concerned that the SQA would punish them for doing so.
In response to this point, their spokesperson said: "SQA has a range of appropriate channels available for markers to provide feedback while respecting the confidentiality of their contracts with SQA. We welcome and value their feedback."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel