Chamber and committees

As the committee will be aware, Richard Harry, the executive director of qualifications and assessment in the Welsh exam board, carried out an independent peer review of the report. Fiona Robertson can speak about the detail of the methodology that was applied, because the methodology for the independent peer review was decided by the SQA, not by the Scottish Government.

It is therefore quite unique.

I take the member’s point on board, but the issue that I have as cabinet secretary is that the report that I have been presented with does not present a substantive evidence base for me to issue a directive. I think that that is the point that the member is making. If that evidence base exists, I will consider it. However, the report that I have been presented with, which is a rigorous report—I am sure that all committee members have read it in detail—looks very thoroughly at the question paper, at the marking guidelines and at how they were applied. I do not have—

Of course. On page 10 of the report, it talks through the qualification changes in recent years. It also makes a point about the qualification requirements for history, in particular, not having been consistent since 2018. There have been changes to the qualifications largely as a result—

I very much recognise the strength of feeling in relation to the matter. In my experience, it is quite unusual that the qualifications body would instruct a review of such a nature. I am not sure whether that has happened previously in other subject areas.

The member raises an important point. I go back to a point that I raised earlier: it is imperative that the new qualifications body, and the SQA, have the trust of Scotland’s teachers and its pupils and parents. This has been a challenging time with regard to some of the coverage. However, opinions vary on some of the outputs.

Members have made points about the report. However, the report puts substantive evidence to its recommendations, and I think that it is difficult to challenge the content of the report. I have not heard today from the committee any challenge to the content.

If, after this committee session, the committee hears evidence from people who get in contact with it, I will be happy to consider that. At present, however, the report does not provide me with an evidence base for looking at anything further. I think that that was the point that Ms Duncan-Glancy was referring to earlier. We have to work with Scotland’s teachers—as you all know, I was previously a teacher and I was a marker. The point was made earlier about the disconnect that often exists between the qualifications body and being at the chalkface. I think that being a marker is important, in particular for a secondary teacher, in order to get an understanding of the national standard and an opportunity to contribute to what the national standard looks like. In my view, that informs better practice, and it can help to support better learning and teaching.

We need to look at opportunities for the teaching profession to get involved with the new qualifications body, so that teachers do not feel as though it is an organisation that does things to them. I speak from personal experience and I know that that was often the feeling of the profession in the past. It is important that teachers have professional opportunities to engage with the new qualifications body and be part of it, so that they own the qualifications process, as much as anything else.

The report makes that comment, and it was made by one of the markers. It is an observation from somebody who marked this year’s exam scripts. It is not for me to comment on that, but that is a reason that has been put forward in the report. Fiona Robertson might want to say more on that.

I am content with the report, Mr Ross.

SATH is the professional association that represents history teachers in Scotland, although not all history teachers will be a member of it. The reason that I have sought to engage with it is purely based on the correspondence that I have received from history teachers. I asked my officials to engage to that end last week—I may bring in Clare Hicks on that point. I am happy to engage more widely with the history teaching profession to hear its views. It is also important for you, as convener, to reflect that not all history teachers have the same view as those that you have just espoused.

I will be happy to do so.

Yes, I do. I know that I have not had the time to give an opening statement, but I think that it is worth my while to put on the record how seriously I take the matter as cabinet secretary. The issue has been on-going for a number of months, and I recognise the concerns that have been raised by history teachers. It was quite right and proper that the SQA interrogated the evidence and that it conducted a fulsome review, which I am sure committee members have looked at and read in detail. The review makes a number of recommendations about next steps, but it also looks at the process that was adhered to this year. I will be very careful not to stray into operational matters, which are for the SQA, but I recognise that challenges were presented, and I think that it was right that it investigated them. The report has a fulsome body of findings on the approach that the SQA has applied.

I have also looked at the exam paper. I was an SQA marker previously, although I was not a history marker, and I recognise some of the concerns that have been raised by the teaching profession. However, I hope that the committee has looked at the report’s findings. I will bring in Fiona Robertson to talk to some of the evidence.