Questions about the Scottish Qualifications Authority’s review of the 2024 Higher History exam continue to circulate and SQA leadership have been recalled to provide more evidence to Holyrood’s education committee. This comes after an extraordinary appearance by members of the Scottish Association of Teachers of History (SATH) heaped fresh pressure on the beleaguered exam board.
Here, our education team examine the latest stage of a controversy that began with the Higher History exam on 21 May 2024.
What was said at the education committee?
The education committee session on January 22 was just the most recent development in the 2024 Higher History saga.
Education secretary Jenny Gilruth had previously asked SATH to give its view on the ongoing controversy involving falling test scores, allegations that the exam board had ‘moved the goalposts’ after the exam, and severe criticism of the SQA’s handling of the situation - up to and including the decision to have an SQA official investigate the accusations against other SQA representatives. As a result, SATH leadership decided to survey members.
However, SATH president Kirsty MacDonald told the committee that, after the release of the responses, the SQA contacted her to complain that a senior SQA history official's name had not been redacted. Ms MacDonald told the committee about requests from the SQA to remove the names of any SQA employees from the survey before publishing it and that she had no problem with this.
She said that the possibility of legal action was brought up during her conversations with the SQA, and that she was also told to write an apology. Although she submitted multiple drafts of an apology, she told the committee it was not accepted.
Ms MacDonald made it clear during the committee session that she wishes to see the survey results published with no further censorship, other than the removal of the names of SQA staff, but has thus far felt unable to do so because of her interactions with, and the objections of, people working for the exam board.
When asked by the committee if the survey could evolve into a legal matter, Ms MacDonald said yes. She said that she had been told it could become a legal issue and that unions were involved.
Shortly after SATH members concluded their session with the education committee, a post appeared on the “Unite at SQA” X account saying that Unite the Union will always stand with its members when subjected to “derogatory, and/or untrue statements".
Unite declined to respond and redirected questions to the SQA.
The Herald holds a copy of the original, unredacted report and has confirmed that the comments in question are largely centred on accusations about the culture within the SQA History department.
In the comments, some teachers express concerns about what they see as long-running issues within the team and say they are worried about potential repercussions if they voice their complaints.
One commenter, who expressed concerns about a “toxic culture” that only rewards those willing to follow the “party line”, added: “Even writing this makes me fearful as I wish to keep working for SQA and not be blacklisted.”
Another SATH member at committee, Rebecca Hanna, explained that SQA officials had previously applied pressure to keep a 2020 SATH survey from being published.
As president at the time, she chose not to release the survey following a conversation where an SQA official expressed “displeasure” over its contents. Ms Hanna told the committee that she now regrets bowing to the pressure.
The Herald also holds a copy of this survey.
How did the SQA respond?
On January 22, The Herald sent the SQA a series of questions relating to the hearing. These included:
- Has the SQA requested that SATH remove thirteen comments from their member survey?
- Has the SQA put conditions on the survey's release and suggested legal action if they are unmet?
- Can you please explain the 2020 survey and why the SQA would call for a survey of teaching professionals from a separate body to be withdrawn or withheld?
In response, an SQA spokesperson said that the organisation has not sought legal advice and does not intend any legal action. They said asking SATH to remove personally identifying information from their survey was “usual practice," but did not address any other conditions that prevent SATH from releasing the survey.
The statement also said that the SQA’s Director of Qualifications Development was serving as an intermediary between SATH and the senior history official named in the survey.
Finally, the SQA did not confirm or deny prior knowledge of the 2020 survey or attempts to have it suppressed. The spokesperson said that the SQA asked SATH “for more information to allow us to look into this further".
On Wednesday, January 29, The Herald asked the SQA a further series of questions, including: “Is it true that the SQA has asked SATH to withhold their 2024 survey until they redact thirteen specific comments and/or draft an acceptable apology for the accidental naming of an SQA employee in the initial survey publication? “
An SQA spokesperson said: “SQA has not sought an apology from SATH.”
When asked what – barring any potential legal action – is preventing SATH from releasing their survey with the staff names removed, an SQA spokesperson said that it is up to SATH to decide: “Decisions around publication of the redacted survey rest with SATH and we believe it is in everyone's interest to have the survey back in the public domain.”
What does the evidence show?
Despite a statement saying the SQA “has not at any stage raised the prospect of taking legal action”, The Herald has uncovered a series of emails in which the SQA Director of Qualifications Development warns the President of SATH that some material in the report is considered “potentially defamatory.”
She states that she is writing “in my position as Director of Qualifications Development” and adds that the SQA, referred to as “we”, is “extremely disappointed and concerned” at the publication of the material in question.
Read more about the Higher History controversy:
- Teachers hit out at SQA over ‘unfair’ exam marking
-
SQA admits 'fully independent review' of exam marking never an option
-
MSPs told SQA is blocking a teacher survey containing criticism of the SQA
The message highlights one such comment about the senior History official, who is the target for a number of critical comments. It references the fact that the SQA’s recent internal review of Higher History marking – which was heavily criticised over both the methodological processes and the final conclusions – found no issues, stating that staff had “acted with integrity at all times”.
The Director concludes the letter by saying she “requires” SATH to do four things before the next day. These included removing all personal information from the survey, recalling any unredacted versions from websites or social media, and asking SATH members not to share the unredacted survey.
The final requirement was “that SATH publicly apologises to colleagues named in the survey results and publicly acknowledges that this personal information should not have been published.”
Later correspondence between SATH leadership and the Director show that at least one draft of an apology was explicitly rejected as “insufficient” and that the Director passed on a “request” that the apology include a disavowal of the comments in question and assurances it will never happen again.
The emails also confirm that the Director did provide a list of thirteen survey responses for SATH’s “consideration” which had been highlighted as “either identifying individuals or because of their nature in a public forum.”
The Herald has also seen evidence that the exam board was explicitly warned about the culture that was developing within the History department as far back as 2019, when the entire National 5 core team signed a letter raising their fear that “any legitimate questioning of SQA policy and procedures will result in contracts not being renewed.”
With regards to the accusations about the 2020 SATH survey, which the SQA said it needed more information on, The Herald has obtained documents showing that this issue was explicitly raised in a letter to SQA Chief Executive Fiona Robertson in September 2024. This communication also raised concerns about “constantly changing standards” and a “bullying culture” at the exam board. The Herald has also been told that the matter had been raised directly with SQA officials in the period immediately prior to the SATH committee appearance.
What does the SQA have to say now?
The above evidence was shared with the SQA.
We asked where the phrase “potentially defamatory” originated and what is currently preventing SATH from publishing their survey.
We also asked the SQA to clarify its stance that it had not sought an apology from SATH in light of the emails referencing "requirements" and draft apologies, and whether it would acknowledge that concerns about the culture within the History team have been raised for a number of years.
An SQA spokesperson said: “SQA has not sought any legal advice on the recent SATH survey of history teachers and has not at any stage raised the prospect of taking legal action.
“We do not intend to take legal action. We have no further comment on this issue.”
We also asked the SQA to address claims that markers have been removed from their positions or not invited back because of public criticism.
A spokesperson said: “There are routes through which SQA appointees can raise concerns, queries, or questions, and we welcome feedback.
“If however an appointee brings the organisation into disrepute, their contract can be terminated.
“This is outlined in the ‘Terms and Conditions of Appointment' which SQA appointees must accept as part of their contracts.
“We do not comment on individual contracts.”
And when asked about the SQA's knowledge of the 2020 survey in light of the letters presented, the spokesperson said:
"We have asked SATH for more information to allow us to look into this matter further.
"SQA will afford SATH the courtesy of discussing this matter with them first not through the media.
"We are clear that it is a matter for subject associations to decide how they engage with their members."
Share