The SQA's chief examiner said it is not the organisation's job to explain why Higher History student performance fell in 2024 and added that she is "content" with the review of Higher History marking.

On Wednesday, the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) Chief Executive Fiona Robertson was brought before Holyrood's Education, Children and Young People Committee to answer questions about how the SQA conducted a review following concerns over the marking of last year's Higher History exam.

The questions concerned falling student attainment on the Higher History exam and allegations that the SQA had "moved the goalposts" on teachers and students.

Exam results for 2024 showed the overall pass rate for Higher History fell significantly compared to last year. Teachers pointed to specific concerns over the compulsory Scottish History paper, where the average national mark fell from 20.6 in 2023 to 15.2 in 2024 – a drop of more than 25 percent in a single year.

Committee convener Douglas Ross pressed Mrs Robertson to explain why the SQA didn't launch a review or investigation into the Higher History scores immediately, instead waiting until there was significant pressure from teachers in the media and online. 

Mrs Robertson told the committee that "variability in attainment is not unusual," pointing to a 13.3 percent decline in the Higher Applied Maths A to C attainment rate and a 7.1 percent increase in attainment in Religious, Moral, & Philosophical Studies (RMPS).

The Higher History scores stood out after exam season, when whistleblowers raised concerns over how the SQA approached marking and handled the subsequent criticism. Still, Mrs Robertson said that she "remains confident" about the results that the SQA published on results day.

"However, I recognize the importance, and as I am sure the committee does, of the integrity of our qualifications and the public confidence in our qualifications."

This led to her commissioning a review of the Higher History marking, which was pitched as an independent review by the SQA, although it was conducted by SQA staff from outside the Higher History department. 

Mrs Robertson said that the review's object was not to blame students, staff, or the SQA for the fall in Higher History attainment but to review the marking system and how it was carried out. 

When asked directly if it was the SQA's job to explain falling attainment, Mrs Robertson pointed to evidence that perhaps a larger number of students sat exams that they may not have been adequately prepared for based on their previous courses.

"I believe I play a role in explaining what has happened and explaining how learners are engaging. Effectively, on results day, we are providing a snapshot of learner performance of those who take our qualifications.

"But there are wider issues here which SQA does not have a locus on."

In a column that appeared in TES Scotland the night before Wednesday hearing, the SQA's Higher History principal assessor and senior team leader provided a more direct answer.

"It is not for us - or the rest of the exam team or the SQA - to explain why learner performance fell so dramatically. That is a much wider issue that the whole education community needs to consider and fix."

Green MSP Ross Greer pressed Mrs Robertson on who is responsible for explaining student attainment.

"I accept that the SQA's report is about quality assuring its own processes. Based on the conclusions it's come to, the issue is not with either the exam paper or the marking scheme, and the issue is an unusual underperformance of pupils.

"If it's not the role of the Chief Examiner to look into why, whose responsibility is it to look into that further?"

Read More

Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth said that, ultimately, it is up to the Scottish Government and local authorities to investigate student performance.

"We, in law, have a responsibility for improvement in Scottish education, and I accept my role in that."

When asked directly, Mrs Gilruth said that she backed the SQA's review into its Higher History marking and said she considers the matter "closed" unless further evidence is brought forward. 

Referring to the SQA's review released earlier this month, she said that "the report puts substantive evidence to its recommendations, and I think it is difficult to challenge the contents of that report.

"And what I have not heard today from the committee is any challenge to the content in the report. If, after this committee session, the committee hears evidence from people who might get in contact with the committee, I'm more than happy to consider that.

"But at the current time, the report does not provide me with an evidence base for us to look at anything further."

That challenge came moments later, however, from committee convener Mr Ross, who said that he explicitly challenged the report's findings and called for an independent review conducted entirely by non-SQA personnel.

The hearing concluded with Mr Ross asking Mrs Robertson and Mrs Gilruth directly whether they would consider such a review now, given the ongoing concerns of teachers and stakeholders.

"If you are so confident in this report, and the findings are very clear and categorical, why not say, 'Let's have a wholly independent review, which will then surely confirm everything that was in the internal review?'"

Mrs Robertson said that she was "satisfied" with the report. While she eventually admitted she would discuss the possibility of an independent review, she said that she does not "consider an independent review to be necessary."