SQA chief in whitewash claim over report into exams f iasco
THE organisation at the heart of the exam results fiasco has been accused of ‘covering up’ the findings of an independent report into the debacle.
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) lowered the grades of tens of thousands of pupils this summer after exams were cancelled due to coronavirus.
However, following widespread criticism of the moderation process, many grades were reinstated to teacher estimates and a report into the process was ordered.
Now the head of the SQA has been accused of a ‘whitewash’, after it emerged that she was able to read and amend the document before its publication.
SQA chief executive Fiona Robertson was sent the draft report by the Scottish Government for ‘fact checking’, but responded with a 44-page spreadsheet demanding certain criticisms be amended or removed.
There were 120 amendments suggested by Mrs Robertson, who previously advised Education Secretary John Swinney, as well as being the Government’s director for learning.
Changes were made to one part headed ‘perceived weakness’, which referred to a ‘lack of engagement by SQA with the teaching profession’.
Mrs Robertson – who earns £130,000 a year – responded that the SQA had ‘consulted fully’ and the sentence was removed from the final report.
A reference to the body having used out-of-date resources to rank pupils was also deleted.
The revelation has sparked calls for the Scottish Government to explain why the censorship was allowed.
Scottish Conservative education spokesman Jamie Greene said: ‘It beggars belief that the SNP Government would ever have thought it appropriate to try to whitewash this much-needed, independent report.
‘The SNP must now explain why parliament and the public have been hoodwinked by t heir cynical attempts to cover up their mess.’
Thousands of pupils were left heartbroken after they missed out on their estimated grades this summer, when the SQA ‘ moderated’ their marks based on the previous performance of their schools.
After i nitially supporting the moderation process, Mr Swinney performed a U-turn and ordered that teachers’ initial assessments be accepted. He also promised an independent review.
Professor Mark Priestley of Stirling University, who was instructed to carry it out, stands by his report, calling it a ‘robust document’.
The Scottish Government insisted: ‘Professor Priestley’s review was entirely independent.’
Mrs Robertson also demanded more than 40 other alterations, some of them within a section discussing if there had been an ‘erosion of trust/ confidence in SQA among teachers and young people’.
This sentence was scaled back to read ‘ Respondents reported an erosion of trust’. Other critical quotes were either removed or given further explanation, though they did appear in the final report.
An SQA spokesman said: ‘ We engaged fully to provide detailed feedback, seeking to ensure the final report was f actually accurate, balanced, robust and beneficial.’
‘Attempts to cover up their mess’