Higher History Exam Review Attributes Grade Decline to Student Responses

A review of the current year’s Higher History examination has determined that the marking and grading procedures functioned as designed. This review was initiated following concerns regarding the marking standard, which arose after a significant decrease in the proportion of students achieving A, B, or C grades. Scotland’s sole exam board, the SQA, established the review and concluded that the standard applied in Higher History was consistent with prior years. The review indicated that input from markers, all of whom are educators, “overwhelmingly focused on the poor standard of responses provided by learners in this year’s examinations”. Dissatisfaction regarding the outcomes emerged in August, coinciding with the revelation that the percentage of students achieving top grades in Higher History had decreased by 13 percentage points, with scores in the Scottish history paper experiencing an even more pronounced decline. Educators informed The Herald newspaper that the SQA exam board was ‘moving the goalposts’, asserting that marking had become more stringent and demanded greater specificity. Nevertheless, the SQA’s examination of the Higher History assessment concluded that “the marking and grading processes worked as intended”. The review stated, “Learners were not disadvantaged and can be confident that the attainment rate for Higher History accurately reflected their performance.” It also affirmed that “normal processes were followed rigorously and robustly” and that the standard established for the assessments “was not higher than that set in previous years”. The SQA reported that the predominant finding from marker reports for 2024 indicated a significant decline in both learner performance and the quality of their responses. Specifically, for the British, European and World question paper, 52% of markers perceived the performance standard to be lower or significantly lower compared to 2023. In the case of the Scottish history question paper, 81% of markers believed it was lower than the preceding year. The 51-page document includes observations from markers who noted that numerous candidates did not demonstrate a Higher level of understanding and performed at a considerably lower standard than in prior years. Shirley Rogers, who chairs the SQA Board, affirmed that “the grading decisions made were the right ones” and that “learners were assessed and graded fairly”. She commented: “I hope the outcome of this review, published today to allow full transparency, will draw a line under the issue and reassure learners, parents, carers, teachers and lecturers – as well as the wider public – that they can have full confidence in SQA’s assessment and awarding processes.” The SQA had previously encountered criticism for undertaking an internal examination of the exam marking instead of commissioning an independent entity to review it. The organization stated that Richard Harry, executive director of qualifications and assessment at WJEC, Wales’ largest awarding body, had provided external oversight of its review. Mr Harry indicated that he was “content that the report’s conclusions are supported sufficiently”. Pam Duncan-Glancy, Scottish Labour’s education spokeswoman, stated: “Once again the SQA has shown how disconnected it is from what is happening in our schools.“After marking its own homework, the SQA has decided to try and blame pupils and teachers for what went wrong here.” Miles Briggs, the Scottish Conservative education spokesman, commented: “This ‘nothing to see here’ response from the SQA will do little to satisfy pupils, parents and teachers who have grave concerns over this year’s Higher History exam.“This apparent whitewash will do little to assuage suspicions that the SQA is marking its own homework and underlines the need for proper reform of this discredited quango, rather than just a superficial name change.”