John Swinney may have misled MSPs over an investigation into alleged marking problems with the 2024 Higher History exam.

The First Minister claimed that SQA's work had been "thorough and independent" and that a report on the issue had been "peer reviewed". However, the body asked to provide an independent review of the investigation has declined to publicly support the methodology used by the Scottish exam board.

Critics now say that the Mr Swinney has “questions to answer” and “must come clean” with MSPs.

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 13% decline in the overall pass rate.

The review, which was carried out by an SQA official, was eventually published on November 6 – more than a month late. It found that the exam board had acted properly and blamed pupils for the drastic drop in attainment rates and performance levels.

However, The Herald quickly revealed that the only people interviewed as part of the investigation had close links to the SQA and were the people whose work was being reviewed. This led to fresh accusations that the exam board was being allowed to ‘mark its own homework'.

During last week’s First Minister’s Question session in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Swinney was challenged on the report by Labour’s Pam Duncan-Glancy MSP, who cited The Herald’s reporting on the matter.

In response, Mr Swinney backed the SQA, stating that a “a thorough and independent review” had been carried out. He then added that the report had been “peer reviewed” by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC).

However, when asked about the approach taken during the investigation, including the decision to only interview those with links to Scotland’s exam board, a WJEC spokesperson refused to comment.

Instead, they advised that their role had only been to ensure that the evidence provided in the report matched the conclusions presented. Questions about the way in which that evidence had been gathered were referred back to the SQA.

READ MORE

Scottish Labour education spokesperson Pam Duncan-Glancy said that Mr Swinney has “questions to answer”. She also referenced the 2020 exam algorithm scandal and warned that the First Minister risks presiding over another “exams fiasco”.

Ms Duncan-Glancy said: “This debacle lays bare all of the failings of the SNP’s qualifications body – they are disconnected from the classroom and are happy to protect their own instead of protecting Scotland’s education system. 

“Last week the First Minister said the review was scrutinised, but this latest revelation leaves him with questions to answer.

“The First Minister has already presided over an exams fiasco and it is looking increasing likely that he’s going to preside over another.

“Once again young people have been left paying the price for SNP incompetence.”

Scottish Conservatives education spokesperson Miles Briggs, who previously described the report as a ‘whitewash’, insisted that the First Minister must “come clean on his knowledge of the situation engulfing the SQA".

He added: “Other authorities clearly believe that the SQA has marked its own homework and has avoided the thorough investigation that should have taken place.

“As a former education secretary, John Swinney must be upfront about what evidence there is to support what he said in Parliament. Otherwise, suspicions will only continue to grow about this SNP quango, which is not fit for purpose.”

A spokesperson for the Scottish Parliament said: “Members are responsible for the content of their contributions during Parliamentary proceedings. The Parliament’s Members’ corrections guidance sets out the process around correcting information during proceedings or through corrections added to the Official Report, including how to seek corrections from another member and publicising where a correction has been added.”

An SQA spokesperson said: “The Executive Director of Qualifications and Assessment at WJEC, an expert in standard setting in the context of national examinations, provided independent, external scrutiny and challenge of the review, including the evidence, conclusions and wider reflections. We provided Mr Harry [Richard Harry WJEC executive director of qualifications and assessment] with whatever additional information he asked for to be able to undertake his work and he has publicly acknowledged the review team’s candour and openness to challenge through this process.”

The Scottish Government were approached for comment.