SQA accused of 'whitewash' in Higher History marking review

The SQA press release says that “learners were not disadvantaged and can be confident that the attainment rate for Higher History accurately reflected their performance.”

In August, The Herald revealed that teachers, including current exam marks, had accused the SQA of ‘moving the goalposts’ and subjecting students to an ‘unfair’ marking process for this year’s Higher History exam.

They insisted that more detailed answers had been demanded than has previously been the case, with the SQA therefore accused of “moving the goalposts” after the exam had taken place.

Critics argued that this decision was behind a 25% drop in pupils’ performance levels in the Scottish History part of the exam, and a thirteen percentage point decline in the overall pass rate.

The Herald revealed that the SQA had launched an investigations into the concerns on the 20th of September, but the exam board has now revealed that it had in fact commissioned the review on the 11th of September, two days after we revealed that education secretary Jenny Gilruth had requested a meeting with SQA officials.

According to the SQA release, the investigation was “carried out by SQA’s Head of Standards with support and oversight from the Director of Policy, Analysis and Standards.” It adds that “ independent, external scrutiny of the review” was provided by Richard Harry, Executive Director of Qualifications and Assessment at Wales’ largest awarding body, the WJEC.

The chair of the SQA board said that she hopes the release of the review will “draw a line under the issue”.

Fiona Robertson, Scotland’s Chief Examiner, said: “Given the concerns that were raised about Higher History in the weeks after Results Day, it was important to provide reassurance to learners and teachers and to provide confidence in the results and the processes that underpinned them. That’s why I commissioned SQA’s Head of Standards to undertake a comprehensive, evidence-led review and we asked another awarding body, WJEC, to mark SQA’s homework and provide independent assurance that any conclusions reached were evidence-based and valid.

“I acknowledge that the review has taken longer than anticipated but, in the interest of learners, it was important to ensure the review was robust and rigorous. We also had to ensure the external reviewer had sufficient time to analyse, assess and audit the evidence and conclusions. I am very grateful to Richard Harry for the time he has given to provide external scrutiny of the review.

“There are always lessons for us to learn and this report highlights some areas for wider reflection, which I welcome. In particular, we need to improve how we deal with feedback we receive from markers so that they know that their concerns are being listened to and, where necessary, dealt with. We are committed to giving all learners and educators a stronger voice as we transition into Qualifications Scotland.”

However, speaking to The Herald on condition of anonymity, current History teachers – including some who marked exams in 2024 – were scathing about the SQA report, offering comments including:

• “It is a disgrace that they are saying there was no change and no problem!”

• “Absolutely no way!! I know for a fact that markers were writing in their reports that they were surprised by the standard and would have to adjust their teaching.”

• “Like Trump’s victory, even though the history report is as expected, it’s still a gut punch. It makes liars out of all the teachers who were in that room, which is such an unpleasant aftertaste. It makes it hard to move forward. The report gives no redress.”

• “Can't say I'm shocked. Teachers are ultimately too busy to put up a fuss and the whole thing will be memory holed by schools and staff who can't afford to dwell on it. As always it's the pupils that ultimately suffer.”

• “It's there in black and white that the MI changed from the year prior. What hope is there if SQA team leaders said it had changed and they aren't believed. Now every teacher of history from N4-AH will be second guessing every bit of advice they give. Maybe the SQA will re-brand their advertising for markers from ‘get the inside track’ to ‘get the inside track (which might also be incorrect)’.”

• “Confused and demoralised sums it up. I no longer have any confidence in H History as a course and as a Faculty Head will need to look in future at coursing our young people away from History into Mods/Geog/Politcs so they have a chance of getting the grades they need for uni. Really sad. Those in charge of assessment have effectively destroyed the subject. It was already bad enough with the issues with essay structure for paper 1, the issues with paper 2 now are a death knell for the course.”

• “What an absolute farce. They always knew they would find no fault with themselves, what was the point?”

One teacher contacted The Herald to point out that an acknowledgement of the “change of standard” had been “buried in the report”.

In a section containing “representative marker comments”, several teachers express concerns including “the marking standard was much higher than in previous years” and argued that requiring students to use “a name to get a mark” was “not the same as previous years”.

However, the report suggests that markers may not fully understand the processes involved in grading exam papers, and says that the principal assessor and senior exam team have “wider knowledge.” It also says that the principal assessor – about whom teachers have raised concerns – “felt that the markers’ meeting had run as expected”.

SNP MSP Fergus Ewing, who had previously called for government action over the issue, was also sceptical: “Given the angry and sceptical reaction from the teachers themselves, this report seems to be more of an exercise in self-justification by the SQA than an honest attempt to answer legitimate and serious questions, from children teachers and parents.  

“Some children may not get the  place in a university courses they sought, as a result of poorer than expected history  performance. Surely that’s a serious matter? But not one that seems to concern the SQA. 

“If the marks of children were as SQA state so much lower last year , then why was that? Nowhere in the SQA report can I see any explanation offered by them.

“In Scotland the quango is now in charge, and  rarely if ever called to book. Their homework always remains unmarked , and errors uncorrected by the red ink of the Ministerial pen.”

Scottish Labour Education spokesperson Pam Duncan-Glancy said “Once again the SQA has shown how disconnected it is from what is happening in our schools.

“After marking its own homework, the SQA has decided to try and blame pupils and teachers for what went wrong here.

“The SNP must take responsibility for the chaos surrounding the SQA and step in to get answers on what happened with this history paper.

“This is a clear reminder that a rebranding exercise is not enough to fix the systemic issues in our education system – the SNP must deliver the change needed before another generation of school children are let down.”

Scottish Conservative shadow education secretary Miles Briggs said: “This ‘nothing to see here’ response from the SQA will do little to satisfy pupils, parents and teachers who have grave concerns over this year’s Higher History exam.

“This apparent whitewash will do little to assuage suspicions that the SQA is marking its own homework and underlines the need for proper reform of this discredited quango, rather than just a superficial name change.”

The SQA has been asked to confirm some details of the review, including the number of classroom teachers and exam markers that were interviewed as part of the process, but has not yet responded.

More to follow