Poor pupil answers blamed for exam slump - review

A review of this year's Higher History exam has concluded the marking and grading processes worked as intended.

Concerns were raised about the marking standard after a large drop in the number of students getting A, B or C grades.

The SQA, Scotland's only exam board, set up a review and concluded that the standard set in Higher History was not higher than in previous years.

It said feedback from markers, who are all teachers, "overwhelmingly focused on the poor standard of responses provided by learners in this year’s examinations".

Anger over the results began to brew in August when it emerged the number who passed Higher History with the top grades fell by 13 percentage points, with the marks in the Scottish history paper dropping even more.

Teachers told The Herald newspaper that the SQA exam board was 'moving the goalposts' and said there had been stricter marking and greater detail required.

However, the SQA's review of the Higher History exam concluded "the marking and grading processes worked as intended".

"Learners were not disadvantaged and can be confident that the attainment rate for Higher History accurately reflected their performance," it said.

The review states normal processes were followed rigorously and robustly" and the standard set in the assessments "was not higher than that set in previous years".

The SQA said the strongest theme of marker reports for 2024 was that the performance of learners and the standard of their responses had lowered significantly.

It said that for the British, European and World question paper, 52% of markers felt the performance standard was lower or much lower than in 2023.

For the Scottish history question paper, 81% felt it was lower than the year before.

The 51-page report contains comments from markers saying many candidates were not of Higher level and were performing at a much lower standard than in previous years.

Shirley Rogers, chair of the SQA Board, said "the grading decisions made were the right ones" and "learners were assessed and graded fairly".

She said: “I hope the outcome of this review, published today to allow full transparency, will draw a line under the issue and reassure learners, parents, carers, teachers and lecturers – as well as the wider public - that they can have full confidence in SQA’s assessment and awarding processes.”

The SQA had faced criticism for conducting an internal review in to the exam marking rather than having an independent body look at it.

It said external scrutiny of its review had been provided by Richard Harry, executive director of qualifications and assessment at WJEC, Wales’ largest awarding body.

Mr Harry said he was "content that the report’s conclusions are supported sufficiently".

Scottish Labour education spokeswoman Pam Duncan-Glancy said “Once again the SQA has shown how disconnected it is from what is happening in our schools.

“After marking its own homework, the SQA has decided to try and blame pupils and teachers for what went wrong here."

Scottish Conservative education spokesman Miles Briggs said: "This 'nothing to see here' response from the SQA will do little to satisfy pupils, parents and teachers who have grave concerns over this year’s Higher History exam.

“This apparent whitewash will do little to assuage suspicions that the SQA is marking its own homework and underlines the need for proper reform of this discredited quango, rather than just a superficial name change.”