Chamber and committees

It was more than a reply, though, was it not? It was a rebuttal. It was quite stinging and I was quite surprised by it. I wondered whether you agreed to it.

So, why was it necessary?

It was a pretty big statement, so I would have thought that you would have it with you today.

I was just asking what you think. You have described what other people thought, but I want to know what you think.

Can you tell us a bit more about what you disagreed with in what Professor Muir said to the committee?

You agreed to the statement, so you must know what was in it. I just want to know what you did not agree with.

Many people in the profession think that the process will result in no change and that, apart from a change of names, everything else will carry on as it was before. Perhaps that exchange between the chairman and the professor lifted a bit of a lid on that. Can you convince us that reforms will happen and that—

It is off that topic.

There has been a lot of comment about the stark contrast between broad general education and the senior phase, and many blame the SQA for that stark contrast. What is your assessment of that? Do you think that the SQA is responsible? If not, why not?

It is about more than room for improvement, though, is it not? There has been a lot of criticism of the two-term dash to exams: we have been moving from a broad general education and the principles of curriculum for excellence straight into a mad dash for exams. That is your fault, is it not?

Some have argued that we should be stripping back exams to quite a significant extent. Do you agree with that?