Chamber and committees

Do the witnesses think that what is proposed is enough to stop something like 2020 happening again?

I put on record my apologies to the convener, other committee members and the panel for my slightly late arrival this morning. I was stuck in traffic. I am really sorry for any disruption that that might have caused.

On the point about confidence, I want to share a few aspects of the evidence that we received, which I am sure you will have read. After that, my question will be for Fiona Robertson.

In its submission, the EIS said:

“The actions of the SQA have inflicted significant damage upon its relationship with the profession, which now largely views the organisation with cynicism and suspicion.”

The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association has said that the SQA is “adrift” from teachers, and School Leaders Scotland has said:

“We ... question why the Chair of the SQA will automatically become the Chair of Qualifications Scotland”,

because

“those involved cannot transfer lock-stock and barrel to the new body”.

Given that, and given what you have just said, do you accept that public and teacher confidence in the organisation is not what it should be?

I think that that lack of trust applies to the general appeals system as well.

When she was asked about culture earlier this morning, Fiona Robertson mentioned that the bill creates scaffolding to make the change. Do the witnesses believe that the bill will bring the types of improvements in relation to cultural and behavioural change that are expected through the scaffolding that has been described?

Have the witnesses seen any indication of a change in approach from the SQA in recent months and the past year?

Thank you, and apologies if I was asking you to go over old ground; I may have missed a part of that, as you are aware.

I will move on from that to the involvement of teachers specifically. A former history teacher has contacted me and others—members around the table and across the Parliament will be aware of the concerns about a higher history paper, as I know the SQA is as well, as you have highlighted that in your letter of 23 September to the committee.

One comment that that individual made was on what they saw as the change in the marking regime:

“It’s absolutely criminal and clearly largely due to a change in the standard for the Scottish paper made during the marking process and not communicated with schools.”

Another—a teacher from a forum—said:

“I heard a horror story from a teacher who was forced out from marking in 2023, after questioning what was going on.”

What is your response to that, and will you set out how the profession is currently involved in the development and review of current qualifications?

It is Liam first.

Good morning to the witnesses. Thank you for the information that you submitted in advance. I found it really helpful, as were the comments that you have made.

I will pick up on a couple of things that have been said. I do not know whether any of you followed the earlier panel’s evidence, but one of the questions that I asked Fiona Robertson was about the history paper. I have a question based on what I just heard from Stuart Hunter and Graham Hutton.

The approach that the SQA has taken to addressing some of the concerns that have come out of the history paper is to hold an independent review, using teachers who are markers to independently review the marking. Stuart Hunter, is that appropriate and does it demonstrate a change in approach?

I put on record my apologies to the convener, other committee members and the panel for my slightly late arrival this morning. I was stuck in traffic. I am really sorry for any disruption that that might have caused.

On the point about confidence, I want to share a few aspects of the evidence that we received, which I am sure you will have read. After that, my question will be for Fiona Robertson.

In its submission, the EIS said:

“The actions of the SQA have inflicted significant damage upon its relationship with the profession, which now largely views the organisation with cynicism and suspicion.”

The Scottish Secondary Teachers Association has said that the SQA is “adrift” from teachers, and School Leaders Scotland has said:

“We ... question why the Chair of the SQA will automatically become the Chair of Qualifications Scotland”,

because

“those involved cannot transfer lock-stock and barrel to the new body”.

Given that, and given what you have just said, do you accept that public and teacher confidence in the organisation is not what it should be?

Do you mean confidence in the history paper in particular or in general?