An investigation into problems with Higher History marking did not interview any of the teachers or markers raising concerns, The Herald can exclusively reveal.

Despite referring to the work as a “wide-ranging and rigorous review”, a spokesperson for the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) has confirmed that only “senior appointees” were interviewed as part of the investigation. These individuals, such as the Principal Assessor, have close links to the SQA and were heavily involved in the events that were the focus of the investigation itself.

Critics say that the “astonishing” revelations prove that the investigation was, in fact, “a formality” and reveal an organisation “more interested in self-justification” than addressing serious concerns.

The SQA was forced to launch the review after teachers, including current markers, reported that the standard for Higher History had been altered after the exam had taken place. They accused the exam board, and specifically those in charge of History marking, of “moving the goalposts” and subjecting students to an “unfair” process.

Critics argued that this change 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 investigation into the concerns on the 20th of September, but the exam board has now admitted 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.

The investigation was carried out by SQA officials, a move criticised at the time, following a decision by SQA Chief Executive Fiona Robertson. The exam board originally advised that the review would be completed before the end of September, but it was ultimately published more than a month late.

The final report, published by the SQA on 6 November, states that there were no problems with the marking of the Higher History exam and blames students for the poor results recorded this year.

However, a number of teachers offered scathing responses, including dismissing the conclusions as “a disgrace” and describing the investigation as “a farce”. One faculty head said that they “no longer have any confidence” in the Higher History course and would look to encourage students to choose alternative subjects for their exams.

READ MORE

In addition to this, The Herald has now learned that the investigation only interviewed people linked to the SQA and that critics of the exam board were not included in the process.

During the review, interviews were only held with ‘senior appointees’ – a reference to the team in charge of the exam and marking processes. Although practicing teachers, these individual have very close links to the SQA, and it was their conduct that the exam board had been forced to investigate.

Questions have also been asked about the extent of work to independently verify the SQA’s conclusions, which was carried out by Richard Harry of the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC).

In a comment included with the original press release, Mr Harry says that he “engaged with the review team on several occasions prior to the publication of the report”.

The Herald asked the WJEC to clarify whether or not Mr Harry met or interacted with anyone who was not a member of SQA staff before endorsing the review conclusions. A spokesperson confirmed that Mr Harry met only with two individuals, both of them SQA officials.

Scottish Labour Education spokesperson Pam Duncan-Glancy said that The Herald’s  “astonishing revelation” casts fresh more doubt on the finding of the SQA review:

“Teachers have been sounding the alarm on this exam for months, and it beggars belief that they weren’t spoken to as part of the investigation.

“The SQA has completely lost touch with schools, but the SNP government continues to defend it at every turn.

“The SNP government must step in to get some answers about this fiasco, and must deliver a genuine change in direction for our education system.”

Scottish Conservative shadow education secretary Miles Briggs MSP said that the exam board seems “more interested in self-justification rather than attempting to address the serious concerns of teachers, parents and pupils.”

He added that those affected “will be shocked that the SQA deemed it acceptable to focus on interviewing those people at the heart of this situation, while refusing to speak with teachers who were concerned by their actions.

“The attempts by this SNP backed quango to mark their own homework shows that a superficial name change simply won’t cut it. The SQA needs systematic reform to ensure that students will always be able to achieve the best possible outcomes.”

READ MORE

SNP MSP Fergus Ewing, who had previously raised concerns about the independence of the SQA’s investigation, told The Herald that the publication of the review “only serves further erode confidence in the SQA.”

The former government minister continued: “This investigation was a formality  where the very people most impacted, the people who actually teach the kids, and who have the vital knowledge about the history examination in question  and the kids whose results were at stake, were virtually ignored.   

“This is just so typical of quangos in Scotland. The people in charge of them always know better and those who do the real work are not even properly asked for their views. 

“I’ve observed over 25 years how quangos become increasingly powerful because the Government invariably back their quangos bosses, and dismiss out of hand the view from the workforce - in this case the classroom.   

“This insidious process has proceeded unchecked and there is no sign it is going to change.”

A spokesperson for the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) said: "As part of the wide-ranging and rigorous review, interviews were conducted with senior appointees responsible for setting the standard. All of them are practising teachers and not SQA employees.

"Everyone who marks for SQA is a teacher. 150 of those teachers provided feedback after marking the Higher History papers and every piece of that extensive feedback was considered by the review. 

"The findings and conclusions have been endorsed by an independent expert on exams and standard-setting."

In response to concerns that the review only interviewed SQA officials, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:

“The Scottish Government accepts the findings of the review into the marking of Higher History in 2024 published by the SQA.

“It is welcome that SQA has identified areas for improvement from having undertaken this review, including improving how feedback received from markers is considered.”