History teachers respond to SQA review of Higher marking

Below is a selection of comments received from History teachers since the review was published.

I can't help but feel completely let down by the results of this report, which although disappointing is not surprising. Burying the findings in a 50 page report, to give to professionals in an already time-poor profession additionally feels like a significant kick in the teeth.

 

Having taught higher for 8 years, I was, until this year, confident in my ability to teach to the standard required for higher. This year has not been the same, as consistent mixed messages from colleagues who are markers, the SQA and Understanding Standards materials, has meant that I am no longer feeling this way and unable to instil confidence in my students as I am not confident myself. It seems here that to me the main issue isn't the application of the standards, more a complete lack of communication over what these standards are. The report finding that this is teachers' fault, not the SQA's is quite frankly, insulting – how are we meant to apply a standard that seems to be different depending on where you get your information?

 

It is now November and the only response we have had is this report. We still have no news of Understanding Standards, or course reports which colleagues in other subjects have had for a month now. Myself and many colleagues will be at least 1/2-1/3 of the way through the course and still have no real guidance, other than 'last year you did it wrong.'

 

If we have, then the SQA need to supply us with better communication about their expectations, with clear avenues to ask about them, at present any time we have tried to question the standards it is either straight up ignored or we are told it is that way because 'that's what the team decided.' I'm not a faculty head, however even in my position as a classroom teacher I am very concerned about what the implications this will have for uptake in my subject, which I have already seen massively decrease in my centre over the past few years due to the prevailing idea that History is 'too hard' compared to Modern Studies.

 

Overall, this has left myself and other colleagues feeling very frustrated, something which the students pick up on and will not do much good to further encourage any to take History in the senior phase.

In history departments across the country, the ongoing debacle over the marking of the Higher history exams infuriates everyone, but surprises no one.

 

It took a while for the widespread nature of the situation to sink in for most of us back in August. Initially colleagues across my local authority, and the country, simply thought it had been one of those years where attainment slips in a particular course in a particular school. But as soon as we started to dig into it, we were being slapped in the face with statistics showing that something was wrong. Why had our Scottish history paper marks plummeted, and yet we were just as much above the national average marks as we were every year? The answer? This was a national problem!

 

This was then confirmed by looking at our own individual pupils - their grades in other subjects had not fallen, just in history! Again, it could be that all of my colleagues with decades of experience with the Higher history course and long records of exceptional grades, have just suddenly become rubbish teachers, but the same pattern is repeated across the country - pupils grades have fallen off a cliff in history but barely fallen at all in other subjects.

 

The SQA whitewash (sorry, 'review') claims that all is well and there is nothing to see, but statistically significant figures are, well, statistically significant! The SQA make no attempt at all to explain themselves and instead they bury their flat out denials is 52 pages of SQA-speak. It's a response worthy of 'Yes Minister' - it would be funny if it wasn't covering up their own failings to save their skins at the expense of our nation's young people. Sadly, this kind of institutional self-preservation seems to be the entire purpose of this ridiculous organisation these days.

 

The extent of their investigation seems to have been looking at the markers' reports, talking to the Principal Assessor for Higher history and his lead team and reading the responses from the four (yes, four!) colleagues who responded to their email asking for non-anonymous feedback.

 

If I can deal with the last first - the fact that only four markers were willing to share their responses in non-anonymous form speaks clearly to the lack of trust in this institution - people do not want to be kicked off the marking team as they'll then have even less chance of preparing their kids for the exams (not that it's helping much now).

 

As far as the markers' reports go, these are documents that markers feel obliged to fill in at the end of a gruelling week or two of spending their weekends and evenings slogging through exam papers - for many this was a far longer process this year, as it took much longer to get through qualification as people were so unsure of what they were being asked to do (as it was clear the standards had been changed, while the senior marking team were swearing blind the standards were the same).

 

Every marker I have spoken to, including those with years, if not decades, of experience, said that they were failing qualification script after qualification script; I was the same - last year, I flew through qualification and this year, I needed to discuss every paper one by one with my team leader. Again, I may just have become a terrible marker after decades of teaching and many, many years of marking for the SQA, but the story seems to have been the same for my colleagues, who I trust even more than myself.

 

Few of use were in the mood to write detailed markers' reports by the time we had finally got through all of our scripts (and, to be honest, many of us likely thought we HAD just suddenly become terrible at this, as we didn't know at that time so many others were going through the same thing).

 

And as for the 'review' speaking to the Principal Assessor and their lead team, aren't these the people who made the decisions about the marking instructions? Who set the standard? Who went into the meetings with the SQA high heid yins and didn't make the case for a dramatic lowering of the grade boundaries, because that would mean admitting they had changed the marking standard after the exams?

 

And don't even get me started on the SQA's own official being the one who carried out the investigation. The person whose professional reputation rested on finding that everything was fine? And then someone from an external agency just looks at the final tedious report and says all is well? Would it not have been better for an external expert to conduct the investigation? To speak anonymously to teachers and markers who have deep concerns (as the Herald has done)?

 

I know Jenny Gilruth was a modern studies PT, rather than a history one, but can she imagine how raging she would be if this had happened to her pupils when she was in the classroom?

 

Pupils and teachers are supposed to be benefiting from having a Cabinet Secretary who used to be one of us. It's time for our former colleague to show she remembers what education is supposed to be all about and to call BS on this whole thing and get independent people in to look at this, with her close oversight and involvement.

 

And let's face it, without doing any further research at all, they should be reaching the same conclusions the SQA leadership should have when sitting down with the Principal Assessor to set grade boundaries: this hugely statistically significant drop in attainment cannot be explained by teachers or pupils suddenly becoming useless; you are wrong if you are saying the marking standard hasn't changed as it is statistically ridiculous; we are altering the grade boundaries and having tight oversight of the marking of this course next year, with whistle-blowing procedures for ordinary markers who identify issues.

 

If the SQA are unable to admit fault, as they clearly are, someone else, our former teacher Cabinet Secretary, needs to do it on their behalf. The alternative is betraying our young people and becoming as much of a laughing stock as the exam body itself.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Markers have made the claim about the changes. The same teaching with the same resources with similar kids as the year before getting massively lower marks? Gaslighting teachers and students to save their own jobs.

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.

 

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)’.

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