Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 20 June 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1956 contributions

|

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

—but the material that will be offered will not be the same. I was told that the responses from the SQA were very defensive at times: they toed the party line and, when questions were asked about something that was not on the syllabus—I asked Andy Johnston for clarification about this, then John Mason went into the matter in more detail—the response from the SQA was, “We cannot discuss operational matters.” Surely, that is a crucial point that teachers should be able to discuss with the SQA. The SQA tells us and others that the events are to help teachers to prepare for this year’s exams, but then the teachers get blanked with, “We can’t discuss operational matters.” Is that a fair reflection of where your members are with the “Understanding standards” events?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

People speaking over each other?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

Who asked for that not to be published?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

Conspiracy theorists could suggest that that was a strange time for the feed to call it a day. [Laughter.] We will wait a second to see whether Kirsty can come back in.

I am sorry, Kirsty. Your sound cut out. We got to the point when you held your hands up and said that you had made a mistake, and that you had given history teachers the courtesy of being anonymised but not the SQA. You told us that you had received a letter and were about to tell us something, but the screen went totally blank. We could not hear any of the part that followed, so could you repeat that bit?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

I find that quite shocking. I understand names having to be redacted—that is acceptable—but the SQA is a public body and it should be accountable. It has been in front of this committee and others. I am extremely concerned if it is now seeking to vet further parts of the survey that you conducted. It was not the SQA’s survey. It might be unhappy with elements of it, but it should not be trying to sterilise it in any way to reduce the criticism. Where does this end up? Could it become a legal matter?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

Those are stark and alarming figures. Have you ever seen anything like this? Is there any comparison that can be made?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Scottish Youth Parliament

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

Thank you very much. That concludes our evidence session. We have significantly gone over our allocated time, so thank you for your patience. However, that shows the level of interest from members and the fact that you have given comprehensive answers on a number of issues. Beinn Grant, I cannot give you a guarantee, but the impression that the committee had was that we could come back to this subject, perhaps annually. This is the first time that the committee has decided to do have such an evidence session, but the evidence that you have given us today has been very helpful not just in relation to what the Parliament is looking at at the moment, but on some of the issues that we should consider in the future.

I thank you all for your time as MSYPs and for the extra roles that you have taken on in the organisation, and for coming here today.

I will suspend the meeting for about 10 minutes.

11:03 Meeting suspended.  

11:15 On resuming—  

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

Welcome back. We move on to our next agenda item, which is an evidence session with the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History on the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s “Higher History Review 2024”.

I welcome the witnesses. Joining us remotely is Kirsty MacDonald, the faculty head of social subjects at Paisley grammar school and president of the Scottish Association of the Teachers of History. Joining us in the room are Rebecca Hanna, who is a teacher of history and politics at Linlithgow academy, and Andy Johnston, who is a history teacher at Ross high school. Both are committee members of SATH.

Your microphones are operated remotely, so you do not need to worry about them. I understand that Kirsty MacDonald wants to make an opening statement, so we will go straight to you.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

Were you surprised that there was not an immediate reaction from the SQA and Fiona Robertson? Why did it take so long for them to be almost dragged kicking and screaming to do the review? There are still concerns that the review was not wholly independent, but what took so long?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

“Higher History Review 2024”

Meeting date: 22 January 2025

Douglas Ross

Rebecca, I will go back to your point about the letter that appeared in TES the night before Fiona Robertson and Jenny Gilruth came to the committee. It was put to us that the letter had been authored by the two individuals because they wanted almost to set the record straight, as if what we had been hearing and reading in the public domain was not correct.

What are your members’ views of that letter and its contents? Did it genuinely seem to come from people who had at heart the best interests of the higher history exam and history departments, or did it seem to be more a blatant defence of the SQA?