THE pass mark for a controversial new Higher mathematics exam was dropped to just 34 per cent after it was deemed too difficult for pupils.
New figures show the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) lowered the pass mark for a C to 33.8 per cent compared to 43 per cent for the existing maths Higher, which was run on the same day.
Pupils were given an A in the under-fire exam for achieving just 60 per cent compared to 69 per cent for those who sat the former Higher.
As The Herald revealed yesterday, even with the alterations to the grade boundaries pupils sitting the new Higher were much less likely to secure an A or a B pass.
The figures emerged after the SQA accepted the new Higher, which has been reformed to fit in with wider changes to the curriculum, was too difficult.
The admission came after both the old and the new maths papers caused controversy this summer with pupils complaining they were too hard.
Following the exams, two internet petitions were started to highlight the problems with one stating: "Students, teachers and parents alike are in disbelief at the exam set by the SQA for Higher maths. It bore no resemblance to the course studied and specimen papers provided."
James Reid, a former principal assessor of mathematics with the SQA between 2000 and 2012, said the falling pass rate indicated the exam was "not fit for purpose".
He said: "Given the hard work and effort put in by all pupils and teachers, it is extremely disappointing to see this undermined by this examination. To have to reduce the pass mark to 34 per cent clearly shows this examination was not fit for purpose.
"Having two examinations, in the same subject, at the same level, which contained predominantly identical questions, raises questions as to why both produced significantly different cut-off scores and number of passes, at all grades. These are questions which both SQA and Scottish Government must answer in full."
Iain Gray, education spokesman for the Scottish Labour Party, called for an immediate review of the qualification by the Scottish Government.
He said: "The pupils who raised concerns about the difficulty of the new Higher maths exam have been vindicated.
"Pass marks are adjusted each year, but it’s extraordinary to see this drop to just 33.8 per cent. The Highers are the gold standard of Scottish education and this is a big concern.
"The SNP have spent the last few days crowing that there was no problem with the maths exam only for their own exams authority to say today that it was too hard. We need a full review by the SNP government."
Scottish Conservative young people spokeswoman Liz Smith added: "People would understand if modest modifications had been made to pass rates to reflect realistic changes in exams, but this reduction is drastic and shows just how badly the SQA got it wrong."
Angela Constance, the Education Secretary, said it was not possible to make direct comparisons between existing and new Highers.
She said: "It is also important to recognise that the SQA has well-established processes that kick in every year for every subject that test the performance of the exam and ensure that standards are maintained and that no young people is unfairly treated."
A spokesman for the SQA admitted the new Higher was more difficult than intended, but said comparisons between new and existing qualifications were "complex".
He said: "In setting the grade boundaries for existing and new Higher mathematics we looked closely at a range of factors including the routes taken into the qualification, the proportion of entries from S5, S6 and college, and the performance of candidates in areas of the assessment that were common across both qualifications.
"We also took into account the overall level of difficulty, ensuring we applied the same standards for both qualifications.
"After reviewing the new Higher Maths exam, it was clear that the assessment distinguished between all areas of ability, but that, overall, the paper was more demanding than intended. The results show the full spectrum of ability including some candidates who performed very well."
Earlier this year the Scottish Government faced calls for an urgent review of Higher maths amid claims papers were "flawed and too difficult".
Labour’s Iain Gray wrote to Ms Constance, citing the "exceptional circumstances" and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon also came under fire from opposition leaders.
Following the exam, two internet petitions were started to highlight the problems with both exams with one stating: "Students, teachers and parents alike are in disbelief at the exam set by the SQA for Higher maths. It bore no resemblance to the course studied and specimen papers provided."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel