Last month, The Herald exclusively revealed that History teachers were accusing the SQA of ‘moving the goalposts’ for this year’s Higher exam and subjecting students to an ‘unfair’ approach to marking.

The criticisms of the organisation – which the government previously decided was so dysfunctional that it had to be scrapped and replaced – were absolutely scathing, but the SQA rejected the concerns entirely. When asked, the Scottish Government also refused to step in.

But now the education secretary is to meet with top SQA officials to discuss “concerns” over the marking of this particular exam. So, what changed?

It seems that the release of the official marking instructions, as well as the demands of opposition politicians, have pushed the Scottish Government to take some action, even if it is just asking for a meeting (so far).

Fortunately, those marking instructions are entirely public, which means we can now see exactly what has made so many History teachers so angry.

Below we have published two example marking instructions, one from 2023 and the other from 2024. They relate to the same type of question, even if the specific content is different - which is of course normal from one year to the next.

Even at a glance there is a massive difference between the two examples, with the 2024 document being far more detailed than the instructions from the year earlier.

The 2023 marking guide provides a simple, single sentence of ‘explanation’ for each ‘key point’ provided, and none of them are longer than two lines on the page.

An example of the simple information found in the 2023 marking instructionsAn example of the simple information found in the 2023 marking instructions (Image: The Herald)

For 2024, however, the explanations are between three and six lines long. The longest is four full sentences, and one even includes a semi-colon.

An example of the much more complex information found in the 2024 marking instructionsAn example of the much more complex information found in the 2024 marking instructions (Image: The Herald)

To be clear, even with these differences, it is still just about possible to keep the marking standard the same. In those circumstances, the more detailed explanations would simply be providing additional possible information to which students might refer, but wouldn’t be seen as necessary details for students to mention.

But people who marked the actual exams have told me, explicitly and repeatedly, that this is not what happened.

Instead, they say that the longer, more detailed marking instructions directly reflect the fact that students had to give much more detailed answers this year in order to gain marks.

So, for example, while it might have been fine last year to say that Scots contributed to the economy of New Zealand because they were some of the first to develop sheep farming, students this year would have to actually name David Munro to get the credit.

There is, of course, a perfectly reasonable argument to say that this is the standard we should be applying.

Maybe students at Higher level should have to give more detail than we have been accepting in previous years.

Perhaps it is important that they are able to name the specific Scots who established successful coal mines in Australia, or that they can refer directly to the schools and universities across Canada that were developed by people from this country.

That’s a discussion for History specialists, but it’s one that absolutely and categorically must take place before the start of a given school year, because changing things between August and May is clearly unfair (not to mentioned entirely unprofessional).

READ MORE

In this case, however, it seems to be even worse, because the changes weren’t just made after the school year had begun – they happened after students had actually sat the exam. History teachers have told me again and again that there was absolutely no warning given for this change, and that their students were therefore left at an obvious disadvantage.

How could that happen? Well, after the exams take place markers go through a process that is generally called the ‘standardisation meetings’. During these events, discussions are held to establish and confirm the agreed marking standard, which is particularly helpful for courses like History where questions, answers and marking schemes can all be a bit subjective.

According to various people who were involved in this process, a decision appeared to have been made this year that more of the specific details included in 2024 marking scheme had to be included in students’ responses for them to gain the marks they were looking for.

Those I’ve spoken to have said that the most likely source of this change in approach is the Principal Assessor for History, who they have also told me was newly in post.

They also say that the problems have been exacerbated by a "culture of bullying" at the SQA, and that they cannot provide honest feedback for fear of reprisals from the exam board.

Whatever the reason, the results are clear: a 25% drop in performance in the Scottish History section of the exam, and a thirteen percentage point fall in the overall pass rate.

And behind those numbers are the more than 10,000 students who sat Higher History last year, many of whom will have been directly affected.