The snappy crocodile question from this year’s Higher maths paper has added bite to the debate about the ways in which we assess youngsters’ learning. The row surrounding the now infamous question eight has generated more heat than light.

It is hard not to sympathise with youngsters who were thrown by the unfamiliarity of the question. It can be argued, of course, that they were failed not by the question but by their preparation to deal with it. And no, this is not another exercise in teacher bashing; it is simply a reflection on the mismatch between what and how we want our young people to learn and the ways we assess their learning.

A former principal assessor in maths has suggested that this year’s Higher was “not fit for purpose”. I have never been entirely certain what that tiresome cliche means, but it does highlight the need to consider the purpose and nature of assessment, particularly at a time of curricular and pedagogical change.

Over the past 20 or 30 years school effectiveness and improvement have come to be judged on youngsters’ success or otherwise in external examinations. Teachers, unsurprisingly, have played the game skilfully and become very good at preparing their pupils for exams in which thinly disguised versions of the same questions appear year after year. The educational establishment operates happily in its comfort zone.

It’s debatable whether Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) is the game changer many hoped it would be. It was inevitable, however, that somewhere along the line a tension would arise between a curriculum designed to be fluid and flexible and a largely immutable assessment system. To put it crudely, at some point a bold question setter would break ranks and devise a question that actually reflects the principles of CfE including problem solving, creativity and, yes, thinking.

Many outside the educational goldfish bowl must be astonished that so many experienced educators failed to grasp that the inevitable corollary of far-reaching curricular and pedagogical change is equally far-reaching change in how, why and when we assess youngsters’ learning.

While the wording and language could certainly have been better, the Scottish Qualifications Authority should not apologise for the “crocodile question”. It provided an appropriate challenge for those who, after all, are our most able learners. A successful solution to the question required knowledge and skills fundamental to crucially important areas such as engineering and construction. Yes, it was hard, but what’s wrong with that?

Those who sat this year’s Higher maths should not be penalised for others’ failures. It should be recognised, however, that this was a failure in preparation, not question setting. Young people need to be better prepared to deal with challenging and unfamiliar questions across all subject areas. The Higher maths paper may be a first step in matching external assessment to the principles of CfE, allowing youngsters to apply learning in different contexts. Otherwise the dead hand of external assessment will lead to crocodile tears for another failed attempt at curricular change and improvement.