The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) has been forced to admit that it did not consider establishing a fully independent review of Higher History marking, as it emerged that the Scottish Government has sought the views of history teachers on the report produced by the exam board.

The Scottish Association of the Teachers of History (SATH) has been asked to provide a response to the review, and has opened an online survey to gather members’ responses. The Scottish Government had previously said that it accepted the findings of the review and defended the report methodology.

Critics said that the revelations “speak volumes” about the SQA, accused it of showing “contempt for pupils, parents and schools”, and again described proposed reforms to the organisation as

Information on the origins of the Higher History review, which blamed pupils for a major drop in pass rates and test scores, was obtained via Freedom of Information requests to the SQA.

The SQA had originally been asked to answer the following questions about the review into Higher History marking:

  • On what date was the decision made to initiate the review?

  • Who decided to initiate the review?

  • On what date was the review actually commenced?

  • Who decided that the review should be led by the SQA head of standards?

  • Was consideration given to a fully independent review that would not be carried out by a member of SQA staff?

The Herald received direct answers to the first four of these questions, confirming that it was SQA chief executive Fiona Robertson who decided both to launch the review and to have it carried out by a member of SQA staff. She decided that a review should take place on 10 September 2024, with the work commencing the following day.

However, in response to the final question, the SQA stated: “It was decided that the SQA review would be subject to independent review and this was done by the Director of Qualifications and Assessment at WJEC.”

As a result, The Herald demanded a review of the response, pointing out that the SQA had not answered the question asked.

The SQA issued a new response on 27 November 2024 which accepted the failure to properly respond to our original request and offered an apology. It also confirmed that “consideration was not given to undertaking a fully independent review”, adding:

“Our response to this specific question is therefore ‘No’.”

In a recent comment in response to our reporting, a spokesperson said that the Scottish Government “accepts the findings of the review into the marking of Higher History this year published by the SQA.”

John Swinney also claimed, during a session of First Ministers’ Questions, that “what has been undertaken is a thorough and independent review of the concerns, which has been peer reviewed by another awarding body,”  despite the fact that the review's methodology had not be considered as part of the 'peer review' process.

However, it has now emerged that the government – which was in possession of a draft copy of the SQA report a week before it was published – has now asked for the views of history teachers via their professional association, SATH.

An online survey has been opened which asks teachers a range of questions, including a request to share their thoughts on the findings of the SQA investigation.

READ MORE

Miles Briggs, education spokesperson for the Scottish Conservative, said: “The shambolic response from the SQA and its subsequent lack of transparency are totally unacceptable.

“It shows contempt for pupils, parents and schools, but it also indicates that the so-called reform over which the SNP dithered for years has been no more than a shallow rebranding exercise.

“There’s been little or no change in its powers or the people in charge. Ministers must finally makes sure that Scotland’s supervising body on exams does not continue to mark its own homework, brush aside its mistakes and dismiss calls for proper accountability.”

Commenting for Scottish Labour, education spokesperson Pam Duncan-Glancy said: “The questions just keep mounting for both the SQA and the SNP government over this debacle.

“It speaks volumes about the SQA’s approach that no-one even thought about ensuring this review was truly independent.

“The SNP’s decision to fully back this report in public is looking more and more dubious by the day – they must listen to the feedback they get from teachers and start holding the SQA to account.

“It’s clear the SNP’s plans to rebrand the SQA instead of genuinely reforming it aren’t good enough, and if they’d acted long ago as they were told to, they might have avoided this mess. We need a genuine change in direction to deliver an education system pupils and teachers alike can have faith in.”

The SQA was asked why its chief executive did not even consider a fully independent review, and why the organisation had failed to answer this question in its initial response. The exam board was also asked if it would take any further action if the survey of history teachers finds that they reject the review’s findings.

In response, an SQA spokesperson said: “The Higher History review was carried out independently by SQA's Head of Standards, and SQA's Director of Policy, Analysis and Standards.

 “The Executive Director of Qualifications and Assessment at WJEC, an expert in standard setting in the context of national examinations, then provided independent, external scrutiny and challenge of the review.”

The Herald approached the Scottish Government to ask if it had been aware that a fully independent review had never been considered by the SQA. We also asked if the government still “accepts the findings of the review”, given its decision to seek the views of history teachers, and why those views were not sought before the First Minister defended the review in parliament.

The Herald also sought confirmation of the action the government would take if history teachers are found to have rejected the conclusions presented by the SQA.

A spokesperson for the Scottish Government said: “As stated, the Scottish Government accepts the findings of the review. It is a matter of public record that Richard Harry, Executive Director of Qualifications and Assessment at Welsh Joint Education Committee (WJEC), independently peer reviewed SQA’s report.

“The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills asked officials to contact SATH as the organisation was mentioned in a specific piece of Ministerial correspondence relating to Higher History. It is standard practice for officials to engage with subject associations like the SATH who are important stakeholders.

“The detail of the methodology of the review and scope of independent peer review were operational decisions for the SQA. Marking of exams, and quality assurance of the associated processes, are operational matters for the SQA in its independent role as an examination body.”