Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Session 6: 13 May 2021 to 25 March 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 509 contributions

|

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 29 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

Do you not think that, in fairness, learners deserve to know whether their grades are likely to reflect those from previous years or those from the two exceptional years with which you have said that comparisons cannot be made?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 29 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

I am not asking about ministers. Given your professional experience as someone who has headed up Scotland’s exam body, if anyone was going to stand up for exams and make the case that what we are doing at the moment is right, it would probably be you. Is there another side to the story that the Parliament should think about? Do you think that those recommendations are right?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 29 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

My final question reflects on one of those issues, although I am not enthusiastic about asking it. I absolutely believe that all young people deserve the grades that they have got in the past two years, and people feel positive about seeing young people from more challenging backgrounds do better than they have in the past. I would like to see that continue, but are there unintended consequences of grade inflation? Do you think that we should be mindful of that?

It is not a popular subject to talk about, but does that bring other challenges with regard to what a qualifications body should be doing? That goes back to my previous question about whether—

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 29 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

In 2020, you pushed for the algorithmic element to keep grades where they would have been expected to be. Do you think that that is important in the system—

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 29 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

You said that you have read the Education Scotland report, which I would have expected you to do. What did you do in practice when you read the line:

“Local authority officers expect staff to use these tools to review concordance data, including young people’s prior attainment, and identify and address any unexpected provisional grades.”?

That does not fit with what you are saying today. Did you read that report and think that something was going wrong?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 29 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

The report says “Most local authorities” and it specifies that that means that, I think, 70 to 90 per cent of local authorities used three to five years of historical data and that local authority officers expected staff to use that to identify and address unexpected grades. That does not fit with the picture that you have given. As the person responsible for the qualifications that are handed out, did you not have a problem with that at the time?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 29 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

However, do you think that the initial recommendation—to move the exam assessment part of our system in with the curriculum part—is right?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 22 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

I agree with your earlier comment that trust and transparency are important. I am not asking you to comment on this, but I personally feel that there was a lack of transparency in the run-up to this year’s grades being awarded, both from the pupils’ point of view and from the public point of view. The cabinet secretary said something quite different in Parliament to what was said on the news on 8 June: the assessment process was being carried out by teachers and they would submit the grades—no one was coming in to overrule them, to second guess them or to look at any other material; the teachers would decide the grades. People then heard about what the normal moderation process is. I am not trying to suggest that that is not what would have happened in a normal year, but I think there was a suggestion that the ACM was somehow different from what happened at the SQA—although, in reality, it was very similar to what would normally happen.

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 22 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

I ask the same question of Seamus Searson and Tara Lillis. Did the SQA have too strong a voice in developing the ACM, given the clear feelings in 2020? Was it trying to retain influence over the process?

Education, Children and Young People Committee

Alternative Certification Model

Meeting date: 22 September 2021

Oliver Mundell

The reason I ask is that I am trying to identify what changed between 2020 and 2021—was it the heavy moderation process or the reintroduction of that? I note that ADES was in discussion with the SQA as early as October 2020 regarding statistical analysis, quality assurance and moderation. There is a feeling that the normal SQA processes, rather than taking place at the SQA end, were front loaded in that process. Is that a fair assessment?