The Scottish Government has been accused of ‘covering for the SQA’ after a request for a parliamentary statement on recent exam controversy was rejected.
Scottish Labour’s education spokesperson, Pam Duncan-Glancy, had called on education secretary Jenny Gilruth to address concerns over the exam board’s handling of an investigation into Higher History exam marking.
After her request was refused, Ms Duncan-Glancy told The Herald that ministers have “gone into hiding” instead of “standing up for pupils and teachers.” She added that the “public deserve clarity” after months of questions about the reliability of Higher History grades and the adequacy of the SQA’s response to 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 13% decline in the overall pass rate.
The review, which was carried out by an SQA official, found that the exam board had acted properly and blamed pupils for the drastic drop in attainment rates and performance levels.
Critics immediately accused the organisation of engaging in a ‘whitewash’, and teachers who contacted The Herald explicitly rejected the report’s conclusions.
During a recent session of First Minister’s Questions, John Swinney defended the SQA and claimed that “a thorough and independent review” had been carried out.
He added that the report had been “peer reviewed” by the Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC) but when asked about the approach taken during the investigation, including the decision to only interview those with links to Scotland’s exam board and whose work was ultimately being investigated, a WJEC spokesperson refused to comment on the ‘methodology’ behind the report.
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.
In response, Ms Duncan-Glancy argued that the government had "questions to answer" about the “chaos” that affected exam marking and “the SQA’s handling of this fiasco.” She pushed for a formal ministerial statement on the matter, but her demand has now been rejected.
READ MORE:
- John Swinney may have misled parliament over SQA review of Higher History marking
- Investigation into History marking only interviewed those with links to the SQA
- History teachers respond to SQA review of Higher marking
- SQA accused of 'whitewash' in Higher History marking review
Reacting to the news, Ms Duncan-Glancy said: “The questions are piling up for the government on this exam fiasco, but SNP Ministers have gone into hiding.
“At every opportunity the SNP has covered for the SQA instead of holding them accountable and demanding answers.
“John Swinney’s own claims on this issue have been called into question – the public deserve clarity and the SNP government should be willing to come to the Chamber and deliver it.
“The SNP must start standing up for pupils and teachers and deliver a genuine change of direction in our education system.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government accepts the findings of the review into the marking of Higher History this year published by the SQA. It has been independently peer reviewed by Richard Harry, Executive Director of Qualifications and Assessment at Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC), who agreed that its conclusions and recommendations are supported by evidence.
“The First Minister answered a question in parliament on this issue on 7 November.
“The Education Secretary is also planning to convene a meeting with the SQA in the coming weeks so that any interested opposition spokespeople with questions about the specific evidence referenced in the report can ask those directly of the SQA.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here