Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is fine. In that case, I presume that you have looked in detail at the content of the report, Ms Duncan-Glancy, because I have not yet been presented with an evidence base to substantiate my instructing the chief examiner to lead an independent review. If you have that evidence base, I am happy to consider it. I have also asked SATH for further follow-up information. However, from my reading of the report, I have not been presented with that evidence.

I go back to the point that the convener made about the variation in pass rates. Is the committee trying to make the point that, if the pass rate varies by 13 per cent in one year, we should automatically have reviews into every subject area?

That question is probably best directed to Ms Robertson in the first instance, although I am happy to come back to the point about independence and how we can provide objectivity, because it is a fair point.

The evidence base of the report has not been in contention today—I have not heard that from members. However, I am happy to hear from history teachers. I did that through my engagement with SATH, but I put on the record again that I am keen to hear from history teachers directly on the issue. The evidence base that I have been presented with and which we have discussed throughout today’s session does not tell me of the challenges that you have spoken to today, convener, and it does not necessarily reflect some of the other views that you have heard. However, I do not discount those views, and I am more than happy to hear from those teachers.

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.