After months of controversy over Higher History marking, and an SQA-led review that blamed pupils for collapsing performance levels, an experienced teacher his written exclusively for The Herald about a series of events that they call “a national scandal”.

I have been associated with the SQA for a long time – well over 10 years. In that time, I have marked at all levels – Standard Grade, old Higher, New Higher and Advanced Higher.

Let me be clear – I love teaching History in Scotland. I have always enjoyed working with, and for, the SQA History team. I take great pride in the fact that I know my subject well and I am very clear about how to maximise the attainment of pupils in SQA exams.

I have always been a defender of the SQA in relation to national marking standards – they have always been clear and, generally, well communicated. Working as an appointee has afforded me excellent opportunities to develop my professional knowledge as well as network effectively with colleagues across the country.

However, what we have recently experienced with the SQA has been nothing short of a national scandal and one which has made me, and numerous other colleagues, very angry.

That said, I have not been surprised that some of these colleagues (who are, notable, also SQA appointees) have clearly felt uncomfortable speaking out on the issue. They know fine well the consequences and impact on their future appointee roles of doing so. This concern also extends to the leaders and committee members of our professional association, the Scottish Association of Teachers of History, who have been entirely silent on the issue which has engulfed the profession.

The original SQA response to growing concerns about Higher History results in August was to deny there was anything untoward. Their initial rection to press and social media reports were to affirm that all was well with marking standards.

Eventually however, Fiona Robertson, the SQA’s Chief Examiner, was forced to concede that 'it was important to provide reassurance to learners and teachers and to provide confidence in the results and the processes that underpinned them.’

The hypocrisy of this statement is galling – the SQA were only forced into this position after political pressure was applied to the Education Secretary in parliament and the resultant report was commissioned.

READ MORE

Whilst the SQA originally stated the report was to be published in the next week, History teachers, lecturers and most importantly learners were left waiting weeks for a report that leaves more questions unanswered.

What is now clear, as can be seen buried in the full report, was that markers did raise concerns, with statements including:

  • “the marking standard was much higher than previous years”

  • “the standard appeared to be much stricter this year for certain topics i.e. the explain question for Migration and Empire”

  • “The marking was so harsh this year, particularly the explain question – it felt like the goal posts were moved after the exam”

Taking these comments alongside the dramatic reduction in attainment in the Higher History 2024 cohort, it begs the question why the grade boundaries were not amended to reflect this reduction.

It appears the SQA were quite content to blame learners for the fact that just 65.7 per cent of students sitting Higher history this year attained an A-C grade – which is a fall of 13.1 percentage points on the previous year.

So, where are we now?

Developments in the SQA History team, and indeed communication with the profession, seem to have ground to a halt.

History teachers in Scotland are currently being disadvantaged by having no 2024 Course Report published, reports which are shared “with the intention of giving an insight of how learners performed” during the exams. They are also supposed to “contain advice for teachers, lecturers, and training practitioners on preparing learners for the coming year’s assessments, as well as statistical data relating to grade boundaries.”

Similarly, there are no confirmed Understanding Standards events for Higher History.

Given the fact that most schools will soon be approaching S5/6 prelims, how might the SQA suggest that conscientious teachers, who are desperately keen to get it right this year, go about marking these to the required national marking standards?

How might the SQA suggest that experienced teachers go about coaching students, NQTs and less experienced practitioners in Higher History?

Our answer may be found in the most recent Understanding Standards event for National 5 History: when a question was asked about when a similar event might be held for Higher History, the chat function was immediately turned off.

History teachers are also awaiting the 2024/25 approved list of Advanced Higher dissertation titles to be published. Given that learners at this level cannot pick their own question, how does the SQA suggest that these learners make a start on their dissertation this session, without an approved title?

One would hope that the SQA were not intending on leaving it until January to publish the list, with the deadline for submission that term.

READ MORE

All of the above is to say nothing regarding the impact this has on current learners and indeed their teachers.

Without a useful course report, or any Understanding Standards events, we are left in the dark as to how to improve this session and ensure that another cohort is not left disadvantaged.

Colleagues are already hearing of the damaging impact this is having on future subject uptake, when compared to other social subject choices. This utter lack of clarity by the SQA is also at a time of increased pressure on teachers to close the poverty related attainment gap.

Attainment reviews will have been held up and down the country in Head Teachers’ offices with staff being held accountable for results they neither understand nor can explain.

The SQA desperately needs to take some responsibility for this crisis that we are currently facing and show some leadership by having an open, honest and frank discussion with the profession about where we go from here.

Our learners are dependent on it.