Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 18 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Monday, June 18, 2001

Official Report 398KB pdf

---

Scottish Qualifications Authority

Good afternoon. I welcome members of the public and representatives of the Scottish Qualifications Authority to this meeting of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I ask everyone present to ensure that all mobile telephones and pagers are turned off—that applies especially to members of the committee.

We will now take evidence from the SQA on progress to date and on the steps that are being taken to ensure the successful delivery of the 2001 examination diet. Members have received a paper that was submitted by the SQA. I ask Bill Morton to make a brief opening statement.

Good afternoon. As before, we have submitted information that provides an update on issues that we regard as important. If it suits the committee, I am happy to take questions straight away.

That would be very helpful.

Will you begin by reporting on the diet 2000 clear-up, so that we can get that out of the road and move on to other matters?

As members know, that process is taking longer than anybody would like. Although there are still one or two outstanding issues to do with the delivery of certificates, all queries for school candidates have been resolved. We are still working on some outstanding issues that relate to college-based candidates. Those are tied into the data match and the reconciliation of duplicate candidate numbers.

Will you be able to say any time now that the 2000 diet is done and dusted and that we need to move on?

We could say that now, as far as school candidates are concerned. We have been keen to ensure that any concerns that have been raised by a school or college on behalf of a candidate are addressed; we have not turned them away.

When we met in Dalkeith, I raised with you a case that involved a late appeal. I do not want to go into the details of that case, but I understand that other people have made similar queries.

We are looking into the case that you raised with us.

I wrote to you about another case involving pupils in Ullapool, which was drawn to my attention on a visit to their school. They received their results too late to take advantage of the appeals process or even of the independent appeals review. What are you doing to tackle specifically those cases, and how many such cases are there?

We are examining the case to which Michael Russell refers and obtaining appropriate evidence from the examination centre concerned. I do not know in exactly how many cases certification has not yet taken place, but they are embraced within the statement that all outstanding cases have been resolved, one way or another.

With the greatest respect, the SQA's first response in the Ullapool case was to say that nothing could be done. Only the persistence of the school's head teacher—who believed that it was unjust that a group of pupils should be treated in that way—produced a slight change of heart. The exams that those pupils sat took place more than a year ago. What will they get, when will they get it and when—as Mr Jenkins asked—will a line be drawn under the 2000 diet?

A line has been drawn under the 2000 diet. If outstanding cases are brought to my attention by the committee, by members of the Scottish Parliament, by schools or by account managers, I will consider them. Where I judge that a case needs to be examined in more detail, I will do that. As far as I am concerned, the 2000 exercise—which I concede has taken too long to complete—is over.

A line may have been drawn under the 2000 diet, but what will happen to pupils whose appeal could not be heard because they received their results too late? Will those appeals be considered as part of the independent process or as part of another process? How will they be considered?

I am not sure what Mike Russell means when he says that the results were received too late. In many instances the position would, from the statement of results, be clear to the examination centre involved. If there were an outstanding issue to be resolved, that would be subject to an independent review, as part of the appeals process. I am happy to consider any outstanding cases.

That does not deal with the case to which I referred in my original question. The examination centre is deeply concerned about that case. If it is impossible for you to give an answer today, we must have it promptly and in writing after this meeting. I wrote to you some weeks ago about this matter. I am talking about pupils who feel dissatisfied, whose centre is dissatisfied, whose parents are dissatisfied and who have been disadvantaged by the system because they only learned their results long after the appeals process had ended. What will happen to those young people?

I am happy to respond in writing on that specific case and on any other case. I concede that we may not have achieved closure of such cases to the full satisfaction of those who are involved. However, we have done what we can to resolve such cases and are drawing a line under the 2000 diet.

The member can take up the case with Mr Morton after this meeting.

I will be happy to deal with it.

One of the major issues that was raised in our previous discussion was the situation in relation to markers. You assured us that work was being done to recruit new markers. During our visits to Dalkeith and Glasgow, we were given some indication of the increase in the number of markers. However, I am concerned that markers will still have to mark double batches of scripts. Do you see that changing in the future? Last year people were required to mark far more scripts than previously. Are markers still doubling up?

We have a record number of statistics to describe this year's diet. They include the fact that this year we had to make nearly 20,000 appointments. Those range from examination setters, principal assessors and invigilators through to the markers. I thank schools, colleges and individual markers for their co-operation in that exercise. We are confident that the entire marking requirement has been identified and that the marking need will be met, using any contingency that might be required. If, for some reason, markers who have been assigned an allocation are unable to take it up, a series of measures can be implemented. One might be to ask the existing marking team to take on an additional allocation. If members would like more detail on that, my colleague Brian Naylor can provide it.

In discussions that we have had in schools, we have heard that schools are having to free up staff to do additional marking. I understand that there were issues that needed to be addressed, but is that how the system will continue to work in future? If not, how will the problems be overcome?

I apologise for not addressing that specific point. Brian Naylor will provide members with a chronology of the various measures that can be triggered to ensure that the full marking need is properly met.

This year we started the process as quickly as possible. We could have redesigned elements of it, delayed its start or risked the full complement not being in place. We decided to improve the efficiency of the management of the established system. That was rather a challenging task, because it involved securing 20,000 appointments. I am sure that the committee understands that that is difficult to do annually. Now that the process has reached conclusion—albeit recruitment will continue until the date of the turnaround—we have a review under way to ensure that all the lessons that have been learned and all the improvements that are in place can be built on.

We have introduced a time line for the recruitment process for each subject. We continue to recruit markers until just before the markers meeting takes place. At the same time, we consider reallocating scripts to markers who may not have had the size of allocation that they expected.

We have worked with the national exams co-ordinator and volunteers who have approached us on the possibility of their marking a second allocation, which is the point in which Cathy Peattie is interested. That process has been successful and has helped us. We have received a good number of volunteers. We have not been able to use them all, because sometimes we have filled the subject requirements through the normal process. The process continues for a few days after a markers meeting. If a gap remains, a series of contingency measures will be used. For example, as Bill Morton said a minute ago, if only a small number of scripts remain outstanding, the examination team will pick them up. That is a normal process; there is nothing unusual in that. If a shortage remains, we will work with the principal assessors to identify other existing markers who can help out. That is the expected way of proceeding.

In our submission, we said that we would try to give the committee an update today. The figures that the committee received related to close of play on Thursday, which was only one working day ago. I think that we gave a figure of 93. By this morning, that figure had fallen to 55. When I left Dalkeith, 23 names were in the pipeline, so we are well on the way to clearing the outstanding numbers in the next few days.

Bill Morton talked about the possibility of a review. We have set that in place. We will want to consider the process from top to bottom and to leave no part of it unexamined. In any case, I think that annual consideration of the system should be a normal process. We want to consider whether we could have slightly longer contracts, for instance, for some of the better quality markers. I do not know what the implications of that would be, but we should examine such matters. We need to examine our software, to ensure that it is easy to use and that if new staff are drafted in, it will be easy for them to pick up with a small amount of training. We also want to consider the flows of information in and out of the appointments unit, to ensure that the system has no glitches. We will want to have a pretty good look at all such matters in the next few weeks, to ensure that the system is as efficient as possible.

Another factor in deciding how many markers are needed is the time that the markers have to mark in. The shorter the time, the more markers are needed. We hope that the change in next year's exam timetable, as proposed, will give us a marking period that is a little bit longer. That should reduce the number of markers needed or the size of allocations.

A lay person might assume that the SQA could plan the number of markers that it will need. The SQA knows roughly how many young people are taking exams, so it seems quite odd to hear you talking about recruiting more people if they are required, and saying that you are still trying to employ more people and that people are volunteering. I would like to hear, for the future, that people know exactly—or as near as possible—what is expected, and can plan for that. Are you anywhere near to that position? Is that what Mr Gunning is saying that the plan is?

The planning exercise improves year on year, as it must do. This is a record year: we have a record number of exams, a record number of papers and therefore a record number of appointments. As I tried to explain when I gave evidence previously, the process is dynamic and varies according to the number of entries, which can change, and across the levels of courses. Some subjects are more complex to mark than others. Although we can plan at the high level, we must ensure that flexibility is built in. That is where the co-operation and support of the qualified and experienced teachers and lecturers who are involved in the process come into play.

You are building on the good will of lecturers and teachers in our schools and colleges. I assume that you are aware that that good will needs to stay, but I think that those people feel fairly disillusioned—they certainly felt that last year. I still feel that there is an expectation that they will continue to show good will towards the success of our exams system. Does that exploit them a bit?

That is a good question. I do not think that we could say that last year was the best experience for markers, or that it is anything other than presumptuous to suggest that that good will could be restored in one year. We are grateful for the commitment from those who are willing to mark and who have come forward. Lessons can be learned about how to do things better. We have said that it may take three years to put in place the improvements to the process, across the board, that are sustainable and that we would all like. Some of those are small steps down the line, on the basis of one year.

I would have liked to adopt a more wide-ranging review last year of how we approach matters, but that would have been too risky. It was more important to start the process, as we did, in October, than to review it then start in December. That would have been dangerous.

The review will consider the flow of information to teachers, training and other such issues, because, as Cathy Peattie is right to say, we depend on teachers' good will. It is important that we do our bit to ensure that teachers are kept properly informed. That will be an integral part of the review.

Where are the gaps? Are some subjects still causing problems or are the problems across the board?

The gaps are not across the board if we take into account the concept of the examination team. For example, with English last week, we cleared the position, but then one or two markers returned their scripts, which reopened the gap. If a gap exists when the examination team kicks into place, the team will pick up those one or two subjects. When I left Dalkeith this morning, we thought that there might be difficulty with only two subjects—computing and business management—and we are in the process of addressing that.

I described the progress that we made between Thursday evening and this morning. I could also show that with office and information studies. On Thursday evening, that subject had the biggest gap—16 allocations were outstanding—but by this morning, that figure had fallen to two. We concentrated on that subject because it had the biggest gap. Today and tomorrow, we will consider business management and computing.

Is there a specific reason why those subjects are falling short on markers?

I am not sure whether I have the experience to say what the reason is. I understand that those subjects are newer and that it may have been more difficult to obtain markers.

That is a generally a factor, but I would not offer that up as the sole reason.

I will return to Cathy Peattie's question about planning. Another factor is that in the past two years, it has been difficult to predict the uptake of intermediate 1 and 2 courses. Highers are predictable and standard grades are reasonably predictable, but implementing intermediate 1 and 2 was optional for schools, which have generally implemented those courses in bigger numbers than we had expected. It will probably take a further couple of years before numbers stabilise at levels that will remain steady.

I call Brian Monteith.

So extensive were Cathy Peattie's questions that they have covered my points.

What is the number and proportion of new markers? How will quality control be exercised over them and over volunteers who have become involved later? How are you monitoring the quality of marking and preparation?

I am aware that concerns were expressed last year when a small number of inexperienced markers were involved in the main diet—if my memory serves me correctly, the figure was 11 from a total of 7,000-plus markers. The quality assurance process has been applied rigorously, so that at least three years' teaching experience of presenting the subject that is to be marked is a prerequisite of marking. That may mean that some individuals are marking for the first time, but it does not mean that they are not experienced teachers or lecturers. We have taken quality assurance seriously. There has been no complacency about it.

Have all markers attended markers meetings?

If a marker fails to attend a markers meeting and is needed, the fallback option is that the principal assessor for that subject goes into a one to one, or a face-to-face detailed briefing, with the marker to ensure that nothing is missed. Although there are lessons to be learned in the administration of markers meetings, perhaps given the scale of this year's diet, those lessons are pointed, as they are evident. The markers meeting programme is now complete. By and large, it was completed successfully.

I want to ask about data management and the reports that have been issued to schools about candidates who are missing entries or results. Is a significant number of individuals or cases involved? How has the situation changed since March, when you sent out the initial letters?

I will preface our answer, then pass on the question to my colleague Billy MacIntyre. Members will recall from our previous appearances before the committee that it is important that we put in place checks and balances, so that centres that present candidates have a means of assurance that the data are complete and accurate. I am concerned that that may have led to additional work-load pressures on centres this year. Centres have approached that task constructively, because it ensures that candidates' interests are best served. Billy MacIntyre will update you on the data and put the situation in context for the committee.

We have issued two reports to centres in the past week. One report covered courses for which the entry was not complete—the most normal position being that we had received an entry for the external assessment and perhaps two of the three units that would be required for a candidate to complete a course. We highlighted those courses for which the third unit was missing from our records. There were 13,107 such entries on 11 June.

The feedback from our account managers is that the majority of such records appear to relate to candidates who had been following the diet, but left their courses at Christmas. Centres had not withdrawn the relevant entries for those people before their exams, to avoid candidates eventually sitting an exam from which they had been withdrawn. That should account for the vast proportion of that number.

The other report is perhaps more important in relation to results. It covers courses that require units, for which we have received all the requisite entries but have identified that a result of fail or defer has been received for one or more units in that course, or that a result for a unit or units is missing. On 11 June, there were 39,221 such courses in total in the report. Within that, we would expect a level of ineligible courses, because, in every year, there are candidates whose results for units are fail or defer. A total of about 58,000 results were missing, but since that date, a significant number of results have been received from the centres.

I had hoped that I could provide an update for the committee today, but the reports take some time to run. They were being run overnight last night and I did not have time before the meeting to assimilate the information. I would be happy to give the committee an update within the next few days when the information becomes available. Based on what I know the throughput of results to have been, I expect the number of missing results to come down. It will come down further prior to Wednesday and Thursday of this week, when we intend to rerun the reports and reissue them to schools and colleges so that, prior to breaking up for the summer, they know exactly what changes we have made compared with the initial reports that we issued on 11 June.

What will be the cut-off date for that process prior to certification?

The deadline for the submission of unit results was 31 May, but we continue to receive and process results. We issued the reports with the intention of flushing out any remaining problems to do with data that still had to be submitted. We will, as I said, reissue those reports to centres, probably to be received by Monday or Tuesday of next week.

If there are any remaining issues thereafter, we will process any data that we receive. The volume will be so small that it will not be difficult for us to process the data.

I take it that there are nominated individuals in each school who, if there are problems after the schools break up, can be contacted and will be the point of reference for any anomalies that exist.

When we identify the anomalies, it would be for the centre to contact us. If we do not know about an anomaly or something that requires to be corrected, we can do nothing about it. The opportunity exists for the centres to highlight any problems that remain with any candidates whom we have highlighted as potentially problematic and for the centres to come back to us.

That is the purpose of the final closure reports. They show, based on the data that we have received and processed, the position as it stands as close to the end of June as we can make it. They allow a little bit of extra time to flush out any remaining problems.

Is that process additional to what you did last year?

There are three eligibility reports in the process. One was issued in April, one was issued on 11 June and the remaining one will be issued next week. No such reports were issued last year; the process did not exist. At the end of June last year, schools did not know for which candidates data were potentially missing within our system. This year, we are telling schools twice, at relevant points in June, what is missing according to our records, so that the opportunity exists to correct any remaining omissions.

The education authorities have also made provision for a recognised contact should there be any continued iteration of data checking after the schools break up. That answers your previous question.

I must express a little alarm with what you have told us, Mr MacIntyre. There is something eerily familiar about hearing that, three weeks after a deadline, there are 58,000 missing pieces of data or errors and that the reports that are going to the schools are going two days before the schools break up. I am sure that you believe that the systems are all in place, but you will forgive me for saying that, this time last year, had we been asking people from the SQA for an account of what was happening, they would have told us that the number of errors was going down and that errors were to be expected in the system—all the same things that you have been saying. What is the difference this year from last year? The rhetoric appears very much the same.

Before Billy MacIntyre answers that question, I state that one fundamental difference between this year and last year is that we have management information, so the information that we are providing is factual. Last year, I do not think that the SQA or the centres knew exactly what data were in the system and what condition they were in.

That is the reason for having the eligibility reports. The process is centred not just on one report that goes out at the end of June. A sequence of reports has been issued through April, May and June. There will also be a closure report. In effect, there are three opportunities to ensure that everybody is content that the data that we hold on behalf of the candidates are complete and accurate.

That is a useful difference and I am glad that you have pointed it out. However, you must accept that it is worrying for lay people who have been involved in the situation and are concerned about it to hear references to missing deadlines, errors in data and reports going to schools when schools are hardly in a position to cope with them.

The reports that allow centres to identify any problems in the data were sent at the beginning of last week. Centres have been taking action on the basis of those reports. The report that will be issued at the end of this week will reflect any data that we have received in response to the first reports in June. Schools can be assured that we have done what they expected with the data that they have submitted to us. The report will be received late in schools, but it is a closure report. The reports that allowed schools to take action to correct any remaining anomalies or omissions were issued at the beginning of last week.

How different from what happened last year does Anton Colella, whose background is in the schools system, consider the situation to be? Is it better this year?

I appreciate Mr Russell's concerns. From an outside perspective, it must be concerning to hear about missing data or an eligibility check and to hear about large numbers. In fairness—I speak from the position of an active centre—the centres are in a position to say clearly that they know the state of play with their candidates and with the data that they hold and have transferred to the SQA, and which the SQA can confirm and they can check. The centres were unable to do that last year. That should greatly reassure the committee—and the public in general—that every effort has been made by the SQA and by SQA co-ordinators, who have pored over the data to check that they are being good stewards of the data that they hold. The committee can be reassured by that.

The schools' perspective is that we are running to the wire. A report is coming out next week and schools are thinking about breaking up next Friday. The report is probably the last thing that teachers want to have on their desks, but there is recognition that the report confirms the accuracy of the data. Even up to the last day, if an SQA co-ordinator has concerns about the accuracy of the data, they can contact the SQA to clear them up. That is very reassuring.

What factors contribute to the anomaly in the figures? The report will go to the schools next week. The youngsters will disappear for the summer, and trying to get hold of them over that period might be difficult. What factors have caused such an amount of data to go missing? Do the data go missing at school level or when passing through the SQA and back again? Are the data still knocking about in some sort of Bermuda triangle?

I will put the figures into perspective. The overall volume of results that we would expect for schools is more than 800,000 units. We are down to about 37,500. We knew at the outset that there were some schools where the teaching and completion of units would go into June. The report that we issued on 11 June was based on the results that we had received up to 31 May and a few days into June. However, we always knew that we would receive some results in June.

That such a volume is outstanding should not be particular cause for concern or alarm. I expect that the volume will already have come down significantly. Unfortunately, I do not have the data with which to update the committee today, but I will certainly provide it to the committee in the next few days to show how the position has changed in the course of a week.

I recognise that. Language matters in the debate. If, when you shared the information with us, we had known the context—that a percentage of results is always expected to be received in June and that most of what is missing will be addressed through the completion of modules or parts of the course by the end of June—perhaps the concern that we have expressed in our questions might not have arisen. It would have been useful to have had that information.

What really interests me is, if new procedures are in place at school level, what difference will they make between now and 14 August, when certification takes place?

We should note that the processes for administration of the national qualifications and administration at school level are evolving. They are still relatively new.

I will speak about my centre. We have candidates who leave at or after Christmas. They start a course and finish one or two units. The teachers wonder whether those candidates will come back for the exam and, as far as possible, do not want to put a full stop at that possibility. The exams finished only last week. Some staff have said things such as, "Let's hold on. They may turn up for the exam. They may complete the unit. They may come in on 14 June. Jimmy will turn up and sit the final assessment." There is a sense of keeping that possibility open all the time.

Schools will learn to administer that process better as they recognise that their holding open places for such candidates causes them more difficulty as they draw the process to a conclusion. My centre needs to examine its internal procedures and how it administers the process to ensure that we do not have problems with data at the end of a session.

There is an issue with language. We had an interesting discussion about language the previous time that we were at the committee. A term such as "error" has a certain connotation. It is a data term. We are talking about anomalies that we are trying to resolve. For example, if a candidate has not been withdrawn but is not completing a course and is not presenting, ideally we would like to resolve that anomaly. Otherwise, that data would be outstanding and potentially an error. We would still need to reconcile such data with the centre.

As Bill Morton said, the language that is used can be emotive. The word "missing" can also be emotive. When I talked about the 58,000 unit results, I used the term "missing", but for some or perhaps many of those, we will never receive a result because a result will not be applicable. Those are entries for units for which we have not received a result. It is quite conceivable—indeed, normal—that no result will ever be received for those units because the candidate will never have gone through them.

So they are missing, presumed dead.

Essentially, yes.

Frank!

I meant the units.

Would the term "not yet complete" be a better one to use? Would that be a useful term to use so that you do not frighten the horses, still less the students—and still less the Education, Culture and Sport Committee?

Absolutely. That would be useful.

Last week, I spoke to two groups of SQA co-ordinators who had received the reports. For the most part, they knew the exact explanation for each instance of incomplete data. They were able to explain them straight away.

When they know that, what do they do and who do they talk to at the SQA to resolve the problem?

The account managers for schools and colleges are closely associated with their SQA co-ordinators. For the most part, the data is not yet complete in small measure across the centres. The account managers work with their contacts in the centres to resolve such issues. That is another improvement in the process this year, which has paid dividends. That procedure was not available last year.

It is vital to consider communications in the whole organisation. When we asked you some of the questions that the SQA trade union members who gave evidence to the committee had raised, we heard that you were meeting the trade unions and that you felt that things were moving positively. Can I have an update on that? What is the situation in relation to staffing and staffing input? If there are concerns about the 2001 diet, are they being listened to?

Again, there is no scope for complacency. Communications will never be 100 per cent satisfactory. We have made all sorts of endeavours to get more information to individual members of staff. Recently, our communications manager initiated an all-user e-mail system—the SQA had not had one before. We had a staff forum, but it was a bit hit and miss as to whether the information got to its intended audience. There is much scope for improvement.

The dialogue with the trade unions has a regular format for joint exchange. Not long ago, the chairman and I met the trade unions informally in an open and constructive session.

Over the weekend, the press raised concerns about staff morale. Those stories were based on a report that was commissioned in recognition of the concerns of the trade unions and the management of the organisation about staff welfare. The report was based on a sample of 80 staff and was undertaken in January—it is almost six months out of date. We are making significant progress on many of the issues, including communications, how we cope with stress, occupational health needs and training and development issues. We have not resolved those issues but we are dealing with them.

Reading the press comments at the weekend, I was concerned that we had heard about those issues before and had been assured that things were getting better. Were the comments the result of a leak or were they simply the report of a study that was undertaken in January?

I understand that a copy of the report relating to the exercise that took place earlier in the year found its way into the hands of the media.

Perhaps you should have an inquiry, too.

Communication with the centres is another area where there seemed to be problems. I had information that things were improving, but I would like to hear your view.

There are good things and bad things in terms of the measure of change and improvements. As an organisation, we are probably guilty of bombarding centres with correspondence, instruction and advice. We are perhaps not as good as we should be at differentiating between the various categories of information. The work of the SQA co-ordinators is critical—they are the unsung heroes. I have seen some of the detail of the arrangement documents for some of the subjects and I would not want to wade my way through them. That is an area in which we should be much sharper. Perhaps in the fullness of time we can resolve those problems through the electronic communications that are accessible by the centres, either through the website or through some form of networked approach.

On the up side, the work of the school account managers and the college account managers has put a human face on the dialogue. Information is not given out in isolation, but explained so that people can work through it. Increasingly, that process operates as an exchange. It is a valuable source of market intelligence for the SQA to which we may not have been open or responsive enough in the past. The "NQ Digest", for example, which is in a readable format, provides the centres with topical and useful information and I understand from the feedback that it is well received.

We have also learned some important lessons about when and to whom to communicate. We sent out a circular to the candidates via the centres, just as the examination diet was about to get under way. That was important, as the candidates needed to know what preparations were being made. Building on that, we intend to communicate our carefully planned proposals for the operation of appeals this year. We have produced a leaflet explaining those; that leaflet will go out to teachers, candidates and their parents. It deals in plain English with the most frequently asked questions. We have also produced a digest that sets out simply what constitutes grounds for appeal and what evidence would be acceptable in support of an appeal. We have distilled the wodge of information that a teacher or SQA co-ordinator would have to go through at the moment if they wanted to find out those things. That communication process is under way now; it is not being left until later in the year.

Are you confident that, on a particular date in August, when results come through folks' letterboxes, teachers will know what is happening, communication links between schools and the SQA will be in place, and an appropriate helpline will signpost people to the information that they seek?

When we appeared before the committee in May, we mentioned the helplines, of which there are two kinds. Each candidate will receive with their certificate information explaining the candidate helpline. Given the volume of inquiries that we may have to deal with, we have contracted out that helpline. It will deal with fairly straightforward issues, such as explaining what the certificate means. It will also indicate to the candidate that concerns about more technical issues should be referred to their presenting centre. There will be two technical helplines through which the centre can raise queries with the SQA. The helpline for schools will be staffed by school account managers, so that when a school contacts the SQA they will be able to deal with someone with whom they are already familiar. That individual will have access to all the detailed information that is required.

Last year, the candidate helpline was in many instances staffed by volunteers from within the SQA. Occasionally, despite good intentions, wrong or misleading information was given out, which is counterproductive. This time we want to ensure that there is a graduated process. General inquiries will be dealt with by the candidate helpline, while more detailed inquiries will be referred via the centre to the technical helplines—one for schools and one for colleges.

Are you confident that they will all be in place at the right time?

Yes, because they are being planned and prepared for now.

I have a question for Dennis Gunning—the only witness who was working for the organisation this time last year. We have talked about communication and the culture of the organisation. What differences are there between the situation now and the situation last year? What remains to be done? I understand that you are leaving the organisation, so you are even more free to speak. You have the experience, so what has changed and what must still change?

I could spend about two hours on that question, but I will try to be brief.

My first point has already been covered by Billy MacIntyre. The position that we are in and the knowledge that we have of the data in the system are hugely improved over last year, when there was too much guesswork and not enough hard management information. This year, we are working on hard management information—that is a huge improvement.

The second big change is that the business of managing the aftermath of the exam diet—the process of preparing for markers meetings and getting stuff through the system—has been much better prepared. That is the result of the generation of the action plan, which has been our bible, if you like, as we systematically worked our way through the issues.

The third big change is related to the second. This year, we have been systematically planning for contingencies in a way that did not happen last year. When something goes awry—as always happens in an operation of the scale of the SQA—we are much better prepared to deal with it and we have back-up systems in place.

You asked where we must still improve. As Bill Morton said, communication is an area in which we must still strike the right balance. An organisation that deals as much as we do with schools and colleges is inevitably going to send out a lot of information. Somehow, we must get the right balance between not overloading centres but nevertheless not stinting on information that the centres absolutely must get.

Linked to the question of balance is another area for improvement: we must ensure that the information that we put out reaches the right people. Although information from the SQA might reach the school co-ordinator or, beyond the co-ordinator, the principal teacher, it must also reach every teacher in a particular subject. That is a difficult issue, because it touches on how internal communication works in all our centres.

However, all those issues are being dealt with better than they were last year. Improvements could still be made and next year I hope that we will be able to move the date of certification back to slightly earlier in August, where it used to be. We would prefer not to issue results as late as we are doing this year, but we were being cautious.

We could also improve the balance in the organisation's activities. This year, for obvious reasons, there has been a huge focus on national courses, but we also run a range of other qualifications, particularly for colleges and private training providers. We have not focused on that work this year, for understandable reasons. However, we must refocus on that work if we are to achieve the Executive's ambitions when it created the SQA.

You have been in the organisation long enough to have lived with the plans for the winter diet, which are about to come to fruition. Many people are worried that that is an additional burden on an organisation that has had difficulties coping. What is your view?

We are applying the same planning processes to the winter diet as we applied to this year's summer diet. The winter diet has therefore been planned for carefully. It should not involve an enormous resource, given that, as you know, the uptake is relatively limited. We are talking about seven examinations covering five subjects, which is not a huge task for us.

I should also set against that information the fact that the winter diet, and whether there should be one, was the subject of consultation. If I may paraphrase slightly, the general reaction from the further education sector to the consultation was a strong desire for the winter diet, which gives flexibility of timing. The reaction from schools was one of relative uninterest—their view was, "If FE wants it, that's fine. We are not particularly interested in it." The need for the diet was established through consultation; the decision to have it was supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland—I believe that the decision was made before the Scottish Executive's time. The arrangements that we put in place are based on a consultation that established that there had to be a minimum of 100 candidates for a subject to run, and the seven exams are running on that basis.

I guess that the winter diet might be of interest to some candidates in some schools. For example, some schools may have an interest in the winter diet as a resit diet—if a pupil has failed higher mathematics, they would have an opportunity to resit that exam at Christmas. However, so far we do not have the hard data to back up my guess. We expect that most of the entries will come from colleges. If you were to ask me whether we should have embarked on the winter diet, my personal view would be that we must meet the needs of all our customers. If colleges say that there is a desperate need for flexibility in the system, because not all their candidates work to the annual August-to-June cycle, we must find a way of meeting that need.

I am no longer sure what the long term means as far as the SQA is concerned—or even as far as I am concerned—but if we are talking about four or five years ahead, the answer is to make greater use of information technology. IT will allow us at some point to have diets on demand instead of timed diets, and we have to move fairly quickly in that direction.

On an entirely different subject, will Bill Morton reassure me that the SQA is properly constituted? According to the Education (Scotland) Act 1996, there should be a minimum of 15 board members. From what I have seen on the SQA website and from what I can recall of the appointments, I can find only 12 at the moment. Is that correct, or have there been any further appointments since the initial announcement some months ago?

That is a very good question. As far as I am concerned, the reconstituted interim board of the SQA is competent for our purposes. I am sure that, in the fullness of time, the Scottish Executive and the SQA board will address that issue.

I am sure that Mr Monteith is aware that Mr Morton is an employee of the board, and is not responsible for the board itself. Perhaps Mr Monteith should take the matter up with the appropriate minister.

We have all been concerned about the FE sector, and I am glad to see that progress has been made. In your report, you say:

"By the end of week commencing 11 June, we will have written to centres specifying certification dates for candidates other than those for National Courses".

Will you give us an indication of those dates so that people know when they are likely to receive their certificates?

In essence, we would like to get back to the same level of service that we once offered the FE sector. My colleagues and I very much regret that we have fallen down on that. The certification happened four times a year. We have currently issued 32,270 certificates for group awards—I was about to say almost 33,000, but I had better not exaggerate—and 71,000 free-standing units. That has been the product of a process involving a data match, which has taken an awful lot longer than we and the colleges would have liked. Furthermore, there has been a reconciliation of duplicate candidate numbers. I shall pass the question of certification dates to colleges to Dr Gunning.

Bill Morton has been describing the process of clearing up 2000; the next thing is to move into 2001. College candidates who are completing national courses will be certificated on 13 August, along with all other national course candidates. For other qualifications, we want to move back to the position where a candidate who completes a group award such as an HNC or an HND will be certificated as soon as possible after the completion is confirmed. Those qualifications do not involve exams; as they are free-standing unit programmes, if you like, which cluster together into a group award, once the last unit result is in and our computer has confirmed the complete programme, we should be able to certificate. This year, in practice, for colleges and students who are not doing national courses, the likelihood is that certification will follow on from 13 August.

The certification of group awards will be done weekly. As a result, when a candidate completes a group award, their certificate will be issued to them at the next available weekly opportunity. For candidates sitting only free-standing units, it is intended that the majority of certificates will be issued in mid to late August after the certificates for the main diet of national courses are issued. There will be a period towards the end of July and into the beginning of August in which the weekly certification of group awards will be discontinued because of the requirement to process the significant volume of national course certificates. However, we are, broadly, moving back to weekly certification.

I know that you do not like to talk in terms of guarantees, but can you give a guarantee to the FE sector that people will not still be waiting for certificates this time next year? That is simply unacceptable; it would not have been acceptable in the schools sector.

To be honest, I am reluctant, given recent experience, to offer any guarantee. However, I can say that the process of improvement will continue. We cannot tolerate any further deterioration of the service that we have offered to that very important customer sector. The service is getting better just now and there are prospects for its getting very much better next year. It is important to note that the support, co-operation and understanding that we have had from the colleges is being translated into positive energy in terms of working with the Association of Scottish Colleges to address all those issues in the immediate future. The basis of co-operation that that represents is valuable to us and will certainly help the SQA to respond better than we have done in the past year.

Last year, there was uncertainty about the way in which information seemed to be dragged out of the organisation when concerns were raised. Eventually, there was a massive discrepancy between the official statement of the SQA in the early stages of the process and what was eventually uncovered. What will be markedly different this time? Are you confident that everyone in the organisation will be focused on that and that they will not repeat some of the mistakes of last August?

There are a number of issues tied up with openness. In fact, your question presents me with a valuable opportunity to raise a point that I wanted to make the committee aware of; I shall come to it in a moment.

The big difference this year is in management information, rather than management by guesswork, to use a term that was used earlier. In the nine months or so since last August, we have not all of a sudden become expert and 100 per cent confident that we have management systems in place to produce all the information that we need and that it is entirely robust. However, the system is very much better than it was and it continues to improve. The action plan and the diligence that has been applied to monitoring it are proof positive that that is the case.

Mr Russell asked Dennis Gunning what more still needs to be done. A great deal still needs to be done to improve the processes. Many of the processes that the staff have to use are intensive and demanding; they need to be made more efficient and less burdensome. You will be aware from the presentation that I gave to the committee on 1 November last year that we are changing the structures of the organisation.

Many of the ways in which people behave and need to work in the organisation also need to change. The staff who are going through that process have changed. The memory of last August's experience—painful though it was—is sharp in their minds. They are therefore particularly anxious about anything that may not be going according to plan, which is, in fact, a good fail-safe device in the organisation. That is the human component. I believe—although it is not fully the case—that the staff are more ready and willing to say, "We have a problem here. We need help and we need to address this."

There will still be instances in which people will keep their concerns quiet. We need to continue to work on that, so that staff are confident about raising problems. We can fix only what we know about, and we need to get better at that.

I wanted to raise an issue with the committee. We still need to get better at some of the process improvements, but our planning and monitoring systems allow us to track all those improvements. Last week saw the start of the pass mark meetings. Of the 20 that took place, we had to defer four, because we had not got all the data through the system quickly enough. That is not critical in itself, but we must ensure that adequate staffing is in place to check the scripts when they come back from the markers and that that information and the validation of the data go through quickly enough to meet our schedule. If we do not have good management information, staff would be concerned, as they might see something building up.

We need to be diligent. There is absolutely no scope for complacency. Issues will crop up from time to time and difficulties need to be overcome between now and 14 August. The progress that we have made and what has been achieved allow me not to give a guarantee, but to say to the committee and publicly that I believe that there are prospects of a successful certification on 14 August.

Thank you very much. As there are no further questions, I wish you and your staff every success in delivering diet 2001. We hope that we will not need to see you after the recess unless for planning, progressing and improving the situation for Scottish students through the SQA. If you wish to inform the committee of any issues that come up, please correspond with me and I will ensure that the information is circulated to committee members.

We will certainly do so.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—