Results show top grades less likely in controversial maths exam

SCOTTISH pupils who sat a controversial new maths exam are less likely to secure a top grade, according to figures.

Scotland’s exam body pledged no-one who sat the revised maths Higher this summer would be disadvantaged after many left exam halls in tears.

A subsequent petition criticising the difficulty of the exam attracted some 17,000 signatures.

However, official figures released the day before thousands of Scottish pupils receive their exam results show lower numbers securing an A or B grade compared to the existing Higher, which was run in tandem.

James Reid, a former principal assessor of mathematics with the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) between 2000 and 2012, described the difference in pass rates between the two exams as “substantial”.

He said: “Given that roughly the same number of candidates sat both papers and that these are from the same cohort of pupils I would have expected a much closer correlation.

“It means that, in my opinion, pupils would have a better chance of achieving a top grade sitting the old Higher rather than the new Higher and that is completely unacceptable in an exam system.

“It is worrying to see such a huge difference in pass rates. The SQA said no candidate would suffer as a result of these exams and quite clearly candidates who have sat the new Higher have suffered.”

However, Angela Constance, the Education Secretary, said it was not possible to make direct comparisons between existing and new Highers.

She said: “For one thing you have got two different cohorts of young people sitting those exams and in terms of the new Higher you will have a greater proportion of S5 pupils sitting that.

“It is also important to recognise that the SQA has well-established processes that kick in every year for every subject that test the performance of the exam and ensure that standards are maintained and that no young people is unfairly treated.”

A spokesman for the SQA accepted

the new Higher was more difficult than intended, but said comparisons between new and existing qualifications were “complex”.

He said: “In setting the grade boundaries for existing and new Higher mathematics we looked closely at a range of factors including the routes taken into the qualification, the proportion of entries from S5, S6 and college, and the performance of candidates in areas of the assessment that were common across both qualifications.

“We also took into account the overall level of difficulty, ensuring we applied the same standards...

“After reviewing the new Higher Maths exam, it was clear that the assessment distinguished between all areas of ability, but that, overall, the paper was more demanding than intended. The results show the full spectrum of ability including some candidates who performed very well.”

The figures from the SQA show one in five of the 10,220 candidates who sat the new paper achieved an A grade with 44 per cent achieving either an A or a B.

In contrast, one quarter of the 10,854 pupils who sat the existing maths Higher paper achieved an A grade and 50 per cent achieved either an A or a B. The overall pass rate was 71 per cent compared to 73 per cent.

Earlier this year the Scottish Government faced calls for an urgent review of the new Higher maths exam amid claims it was “flawed and too difficult”.

Labour’s Iain Gray wrote to Ms Constance, citing the “exceptional circumstances”.

NO exam should be too easy, but how hard is too hard? In May, some pupils taking the revised Higher maths examination were said to have been left in tears over how difficult it was. Some 17,000 people also signed petitions calling on the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) to take the difficulty level of the exam into account when marking papers.

As the concern grew, the issue was raised at First Minister’s Questions with Kezia Dugdale, the Scottish Labour party deputy leader, saying that the situation could affect the future prospects of thousands of children across Scotland. Now the results are in, has Ms Dugdale been proved right? Looking at the official figures from one angle, it would appear not, as the numbers achieving an A, B, or C grade under the revised Higher maths, which was run in tandem with the old Higher, was 71 per cent compared to 73 per cent under the old one.

However, a look at the numbers achieving an A appears to reveal a more worrying story. Under the old Higher, 25 per cent achieved an A, but that drops to 19.7 per cent under the revised Higher – a much greater margin.

When she was pressed on the issue a few weeks ago, Nicola Sturgeon said no one sitting the Higher maths exam would be disadvantaged if it was found that the paper was more difficult than intended but the official figures for maths would appear to suggest that is exactly what has happened. The old and revised Highers were run in tandem because trade unions said some schools were not ready and should be given more time to prepare. But the consequence seems to be an uneven playing field for pupils, who will be judged against their peers even though they did not all sit the same exam.

The SQA’s response is that direct comparisons between existing and new Highers are problematic and that it took into account the overall level of difficulty, ensuring that the same standards were applied for both qualifications. But will employers and universities recognise that? What seems more likely is that they will assess and judge pupils on whether they did or not achieve an A even though, in the case of maths, achieving that A was harder in some cases than others.

The fact that the dual running of the revised and old Highers comes to an end next year means all of this is a temporary problem, of course, although that will be no comfort to the pupils sitting the revised exam who may feel unfairly treated.

In the longer term, the SQA should also look carefully at the wording of the questions in maths and other subjects. The questions in the revised maths exam were designed to reflect the ethos of the Curriculum for Excellence – in other words, relate maths problems to real-life situations and experiences – and while that is fine in principle, if it is not working for pupils it should be looked at again. Making questions harder is not necessarily a bad thing, but the test for the SQA is simple: the questions should be accessible and understandable to every pupil.