Higher history results revive questions about 2024 scandal

The Herald Scotland

a day ago

The SQA has likened the changes to a fluctuation in National 5 Maths in 2023, when attainment rates fell by roughly seven percentage points before returning to nearly the same level.
However, such a drastic dip and recovery in quick succession is highly unusual, particularly when the decline in Higher History attainment in 2024 was largely down to a 25% reduction in student scores on a single exam paper.
The 2024 results triggered a firestorm for the [[SQA]], leading to multiple rounds of tense scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament's Education Committee, internal reviews, complaints raised by teachers and, ultimately, a resignation and restructuring at the very top of Scotland's exam body.
Given the incredible amount of attention paid to Higher History between the first time teachers flagged concerns in August 2024 and results day 2025, it was reasonable to expect a rebound in performance. However, the degree of improvement makes the 2024 numbers even harder to ignore.
The change strongly suggests that something was done right this year to get attainment back on track, but that only makes the question of what went wrong last year more important to answer.
When asked if anyone knows that answer, [[SQA]] officials repeatedly told The Herald that the exam board 'stands by the 2024 results.'
What happened in 2024?
In August 2024, history teachers raised complaints that the SQA 'moved the goalposts' on Higher History, ultimately subjecting students to an 'unfair' marking process.
Teachers with marking experience told The Herald about a pair of concerns at the time: students were required to be much more specific when answering questions, while teachers had not been made aware of any changes. The SQA said that the marking approach in 2024 was "consistent with previous years."
However, one month later, following a meeting with Cabinet Secretary for Education Jenny Gilruth, the SQA launched an investigation into Higher History and promised to take action if it found any problems.
The resulting report was panned by many teachers, who dismissed it as a 'whitewash' after revelations that showed the review only interviewed people with links to the exam board and not the teachers and markers who had raised the initial concerns.
Questions over Higher [[History]] marking carried into 2025, with more Holyrood committee sessions taking testimony from representatives of the Scottish Association for Teachers of [[History]] (SATH), [[SQA]] officials and Mrs Gilruth. In February, Chief Executive Fiona Robertson stepped down after five years in the role. The [[SQA]] would eventually decide to split the previously combined roles of chief executive officer and chief examining officer.
Most recently, in March, Douglas Ross MSP, chair of the [[Holyrood]] education committee, pressed for the [[SQA]] to release a report of 'lessons learned' from the 2024 marking. This was sent to the committee in the form of an action plan for how it would approach the subject in 2025.
What changed this year?
According to the 2025 SQA results, Higher History attainment rates increased from 65.7% to 80.3%. This increase of 14.6 percentage points wiped out the previous 13-point drop, and made it more clear that something was not right in 2024.
Speaking after the results were presented, SQA Chief Examinations Officer Donna Stewart said that the SQA carried out expanded understanding standards events, meant to help Higher History teachers understand how what students would need to demonstrate to succeed in the course.
She explained that these efforts were part of a 'system-wide approach' from local authorities, teachers and the SQA to recognise that the attainment rate in 2024 required action.
Regardless, she added that the SQA is confident that 2024's results were "an accurate reflection of learners' performance."
'In terms of last year's results, we stand by those results."
Read more"
When asked whether the SQA ramped up understanding standards efforts because it had identified poor teacher understanding as a contributing factor in 2024, Mrs Stewart said that was not the case.
'On the back of those results last year, there was a meeting with Scottish Government staff and ourselves and we took action points away from that. The challenge for us is that we set the assessments, obviously with teachers who mark the assessments, and report on assessments, but things that contribute to the delivery of those assessments are kind of outwith our scope. It's important that we are all playing our different parts in that. Obviously, understanding standards is a key area in terms of supporting the system.'
She said that the decision to increase understanding standards events and make information available online was where the SQA felt it could contribute.
'It's not to say we are targeting any particular issue. It is just that that is the space we are in, and that is where we can contribute as part of the wider system.'
She said that the rebound this year reflected a dedication from teachers and local authorities to address a problem from 2024, and, even if that problem has still not been fully defined, learners and educators should be 'celebrated' for the success this year.
Two potential explanations, but both cannot be true
It seems that the immediate problem has been corrected by carrying out more robust understanding standards events for teachers ahead of the 2025 exams, but unless the SQA provides a more concrete reason for the 2024 drop, anyone interested in understanding what went wrong in the first place is left to decide between two competing explanations, as presented by teachers and the SQA.
Either something changed in the marking standard and teachers were left in the dark, or 2024 was an outlier year in which students' preparation and performance was 'weak'.
To put it differently, either the SQA made a significant error out of the blue, or teachers did.
Without further details from the exam board, the latter possibility requires a further acceptance that over the course of three years, teachers and students knew how to prepare for one part of the Higher History exam, forgot, and then came back better than before.
The former possibility can be explained by the SQA making an error and struggling to respond.