 Good morning and welcome to the 21st meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee in 2022. Our first item of business is an evidence session with the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and I would like to welcome Fiona Robertson, chief executive, Michael Baxter, director of finance and corporate services, and Robert Quinn, who is head of English, languages and business. I'm sure that we will have a lot of ground to cover this morning, so I would like to invite Fiona Robertson to make a short opening statement before we move on to questions. Ms Robertson, over to you. You have up to two minutes. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning to reflect on national qualifications in 2022 and to look ahead to 2023 and beyond. First, I would like to pay tribute to the 138,000 learners across Scotland who received their certificates on 9 August. They can feel proud of their achievements across a wide range of national and vocational qualifications and have full confidence in the results as they progress to the next stage of learning, training or employment. I think that you will all agree that they have shown remarkable resilience and commitment during a period of disruption. I am also grateful to our partners across Scotland who, through the NQ and HNVQ groups, have helped to shape and agree the approach to assessment this year. Their voices, views and experience are incredibly important to us and inform the work that we do. This is the first year that SQA exams in addition to coursework and other assessments have taken place since 2019, but this year did not mark a return to normality. Learners face further disruption to all aspects of their lives on the back of two years of previous disruption and have shown tremendous commitment and resilience. To offset that disruption, SQA and the wider education system have put in place a wide-ranging package of support to limit the impact of the pandemic on learners and help them to perform to their best while maintaining the credibility of our qualifications. The package of support included course modifications to reduce the volume of assessment and ease learner and teacher workload, for example removing or reducing elements of an exam or coursework. An exceptional circumstances service to ensure learners who could not attend an exam for reasons such as bereavement or illness, including Covid-19, could have their alternative evidence considered and still receive a grade on results day. Online advice, revision support and learner support from across the sector, including Education Scotland, schools, colleges and local authorities, a more generous approach to grading exams and a free appeal service, which for this year included the consideration of alternative evidence that enables learners to appeal directly to SQA or through their school, college or training provider. The package of support from across the education community has delivered while the significantly different circumstances and awarding processes of the last four years do not allow for conclusions to be drawn on changes in educational performance. I can say that this year's learners achieved a strong performance overall and indeed one of the strongest to date in an exam year. Our focus now is on delivering the appeal service, which opened on results day. A priority service was in place for those appeals relating to a learner's place at university or college, a training placement or employment. Our markers and assessors have already worked through the 1419 priority appeals and the outcomes were communicated to centres on Monday and to UCAS yesterday. We have received over 55,000 standard appeals following the closure of the service on Friday and we will report on the overall outcomes of both priority and standard appeals at the end of the year as normal. I appreciate that there has been concern about the impact of potential industrial action at SQA on the appeals process. I share that concern. I can confirm that following agreement by the Scottish Government, a revised pay offer was put to SQA unions on Monday night and I hope that they will accept. Finally, but importantly, results day also saw the celebration of learners with a tremendous breadth of achievement, with awards in areas including leadership, employability, personal finance, as well as a range of skills for work courses, national certificates, awards, national progression awards. It was also a day to reflect on the achievements of many learners who received certificates throughout the year, including higher national and Scottish vocational qualifications and those undertaking foundation apprenticeships. I fully appreciate the focus on national qualifications but learners across Scotland achieved a wide range of awards. Those wide range of SQA qualifications are supporting young people as they progress to college university apprenticeships, other learning, training or employment. I will briefly say a word about awarding and reform. The committee is interested in awarding in 2023 and also reform. I can confirm that we are currently considering our arrangements for awarding in 2023. We all recognise that the disruption to learning and teaching caused by Covid-19 will have an impact on learners for some time to come. To that end, we confirm that modifications to assessment will remain in place for 2022-23, which will provide certainty for learning and teaching, and that has been welcomed by the profession. Yesterday, I was pleased to chair the first meeting of the national qualifications 2023 group, which draws membership from across the education community and also includes parent and learner representatives. The NQ group agreed that we need to work at pace but also consider arrangements carefully drawing on the experience and evidence from this year. Finally, on reform, we continue to look to the future and are playing our full part in taking forward the Scottish Government's wide-ranging reform of education, including Professor Louise Hayward's independent review of the future of qualifications and assessment in Scotland and the forthcoming national discussion on the future of education. We are committed to making a positive contribution to these important pieces of work, the results of which will help to inform the creation of the new qualifications body as well as the new national agency for Scottish education and an independent inspectorate. SQA has a unique place in Scottish education and our colleagues are sharing their expertise, knowledge and experience to inform future change and support a smooth transition to the new education bodies. The global events of the last two years have brought significant uncertainty for learners and for everyone in education and training, including SQA, but also notably learners, teachers and teachers. Can I just draw your remarks to a conclusion, please, Fiona? Absolutely, I've got just 30 seconds more if I may. If you can draw them, it was a two minutes and we've had nearly five. Okay, I'll just conclude by saying I hope that everyone, including members of the committee, will get behind our work to deliver for learners and to invest in the future, including the future national qualifications body. I'm very happy to answer any questions. Apologies for the question. No, no, that's fine. As you highlighted, there's quite a lot to cover and I hope in my opening remarks that I've been able to give an overview of the work that we've been doing. Thank you. I'm certain that your opening remarks, which are very grateful, will form a thread for some of the themes and the questions that we've got lined up today. As I start off by something, you spoke at length about some of the modifications and the changes that you've made. The chief examiner's report stated that the education system has taken steps to ensure the continuity of learning and teaching and that the SQA has developed an assessment and awarding approach that has helped to address disruption to learning, but it has not been a normal year. That reiterates what you've just outlined to us today. What are some of the details? You gave a broad overview there in terms of the actual methodology and approach that you've taken. I set out in my opening statement a package of measures that SQA has taken alongside a lot of support and guidance that's taken place right across the education system to ensure that learners have the continuity of learning and teaching and that learners have had the best chance of success in achieving qualifications. The modifications to assessment were first put in place in the academic year 2020-21 and followed a wide-ranging public consultation. We have confirmed arrangements in both 2021-22 and now into 2022-23. We have made some adjustments to those modifications based on feedback from practitioners and it's reflected a number of things. We have more than 120 courses across national 5, higher and advanced higher, and it was important that those modifications reflected the assessment approach that is in place for each of those courses and therefore bespoke to those arrangements. For some courses, we removed coursework to free up time for learning and teaching. For other courses, we narrowed some elements of the assessment and a range of other things. This year we also introduced revision support, which combined a variety of different approaches to different courses. That would include, for example, advanced notification of topics that may come up or topics that may not come up. There was a range of measures that we took around modifications to assessment and giving learners advanced notification of elements of their assessment that may come up in the exam. My colleague, Robert Quinn, I am sure would be very happy to provide some further detail on individual subjects if that is of interest to the committee. Perhaps if he wants to give a couple of examples, that would be helpful. The key thing there was about pragmatically trying to reduce the requirements but still preserve performing standards and the credibility qualifications. In a subject like English, for example, the requirement to formally assess speaking and listening was removed but, with the key advice to still develop these key skills, we reduced the writing requirement. Normally, learners would provide a folio of writing, creative and broadly creative and broadly discussive, so we reduced that to one piece rather than two. The expectation is still to develop the whole full range of writing styles but we would only have to formally submit one. Also, in the context of revision support and the run-up to the examination, we provided them with the specifics of the SECTEX in the Scottish SECTEX section of the assessment. For example, if we had to study six poems, we would give them an indication of the poem that was coming up in the assessment but, of course, in the actual assessment itself, examination itself, they have to reflect on their wider readings. It is not like we were actually reducing or narrowing their reading but we were providing a degree of certainty and potentially trying to de-stress the situation in the run-up to the examination. In a subject like mathematics, we provided some advance notice of key content that we would not be assessing. In both those areas, we were pleased that support had to degree mitigated some of the real challenges that were faced by learners this year. We will come on to questions on that from other members later on. Can I go firstly to questions from Mr Oliver Mundell, please? Thank you, convener. This is the third time that you have had a go at trying to help learners. It feels to me that you have again failed Scotland's young people and we have seen again that the system looks after the system rather than young people. All of the measures that you outline do not deliver and that is why we have seen a huge attainment gap. Surely you recognise the attainment gap that we have seen this year that is unacceptable. Pardon me, but what we sought to do this year was to take every step that we could to free up learning and teaching time and provide support for learners in so doing. That is what we sought to do. In my opening statement, I highlighted in summary the measures that we took. It did not work, though. Otherwise, we would not have seen the attainment gap widen back out. You have put significant mitigations in place to adjust grade boundaries and to try to do that. It did not deliver the result that you would expect. It delivered the status quo going back to pre-pandemic. All of the things that you did were to make things easier for you to produce a result that was acceptable. It did not see intensive support for young people to help them to catch up on their learning, did it? I think that we took every measure that we could to provide support to learners working in parallel with others, including local support and support from other agencies and other parts of the education system to do so. I also said in my opening statement that we needed to be careful about drawing conclusions around educational performance from this year's figures, because we have had two years of a different assessment approach and a different pattern of results, not just a different pattern of results in Scotland but a different pattern of results elsewhere. On that basis, it is important to keep that context very much in mind. Again, I highlighted in my opening statement that there is a strong set of results. Robert and I sat in all the awarding meetings with teachers, teachers who marked who set the examinations and assessments this year. I think that we will roll all of the view that, while the pandemic was not a return to a normal year, we saw a remarkable achievement from young people in resilience and the results of a testament to that strong set of results. You cannot hide behind that that young people with the greatest educational challenges have had the least support at the most difficult point. All the changes that you have made have tidied up the statistics, but they do not help those young people to get the learning and the teaching and the support that they should effectively help them to mask the scale of the attainment gap by making those types of changes. Two, the types of adjustments that you have made, for example, helping people to prepare in advance for exams. They helped the students who are doing well anyway. They helped the students who are most prepared. They helped the students in the schools with teachers who were able to provide that type of bespoke support. However, there was nothing extra for young people who were facing the greatest challenges. You have presented your overall exam system that has accepted that unfairness. Do you not think that that is wrong? Where I agree with you is learning and teaching comes first. Therefore, the learning and teaching experience that young people have received and the measures that have been put in place locally to address differential disruption to learning remain very important. I am saying that we have sought to modify our approach as best we can as a national agency and as a national qualifications body to address disruption to learning. Does it make you angry that you are presiding over an exam system that is failing our young people with the greatest educational challenges? Does it not make you angry that it does not cause you to raise concern with the Scottish Government around the approach elsewhere in the system? You have come in at the end to help to tidy up and mask the fact that young people have been failed again for the third year in a row. I do not think that this year's results present failure. I have highlighted the outcomes of this year and the achievements of young people. We need to make sure that we reflect on that strong performance. It is also fair to say that a number of sources of evidence have highlighted the challenges that young people have faced, the Government's own equity audit, the data relating to the broad general education through the CFE-level data, and head teachers to work on the Scottish Retainment Challenge have highlighted some of the difficulties during Covid to impact the gap. My job is to ensure that we have fair and credible assessments and that we have played our part in addressing disruption to learning over the past couple of years. That is what we have done. Issues in relation to differential disruption to learning and some of the different experiences that young people have faced are matters for the wider education system to consider. However, we have done all that we can. We have worked closely with the education system, with learners and with parents and representatives to ensure that we have done all that we can. That is the responsibility that we have and that is the responsibility that we have sought to deliver on. Thank you. I think that all of our… Robert Quinn would like to comment on that as well before I bring in Graham. Yes, thanks very much, convener. I suppose that I just want to emphasise that the support that we provided this year was not just enloaded. It was not just about preparing learners to sit their examinations. We provide a lot of support for a whole wide range of qualifications. National 4, for example, we provided some support and flexibility around the added value unit. Our national progression awards are national certificates of what we did with the college sector. We introduced a decision tree for teachers and lecturers to be able to take a more holistic approach to assessment to try and mitigate some of the real challenges that learners across the spectrum would have provided. I suppose that just to clarify that point that the support, the whole support, was not just enloaded and it needed to reach across the full range of qualifications that we support. I'm happy to end there, convener. I'll just say a fair education system is going where everyone has an equal opportunity. I'm not clear that that's what's happened this year. If you look at this from a statistical point of view, it strikes me that 2019 and 2022 are comparable in terms of assessing performance. That indicates an improvement in closing the attainment gap, not as much as we might want, but an improvement. I wonder when you talk there, Fiona Robertson, about a fair and credible assessment system. How do you explain the fluctuations and those numbers in the period in between those two years? First of all, we see variations in attainment across individual subjects and across levels every year. I think that that's quite important to highlight. That's to be expected and Scotland is not unique in that. Scotland, in common with other countries, in the move to the emergency years, the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 and the move to teach our judgment, we saw a very different pattern of results. We also saw that in other parts of the UK, so similar trends. It's important to take a step back and say that the qualification system that we have and the courses that we have have been designed to support the assessment approach. We have course specifications and assessment approaches to ensure that the learning knowledge, skills and understanding can be appropriately assessed so that we can fulfil our statutory functions to ensure that qualifications can be awarded. That's an important and serious endeavour to do that. That's the qualification system that we've had. Indeed, prior to 2020, we had over 130 years of an uninterrupted exam diet in Scotland, but it's important to highlight that we don't just have exams, we also have coursework and other forms of assessment as part of our overall assessment approach. That also includes internal assessment by teachers. Teacher judgment forms an important part of our assessment approach in Scotland, even with formal external assessment. We moved very quickly in 2020 just a matter of weeks away from an exam diet to working through some of the difficulties in awarding and working with the system to do that, and again in 2021 when exams were cancelled. That required teachers and lecturers to consider their own assessment requirements in 2021 with support from us and to make those judgments school by school, college by college, and we saw a very different pattern of attainment as a result. As I say, Scotland, we're not alone in that. Returning to exams where you have the development of assessments on a national basis, standardisation, markers working consistently and grade boundary meetings determining the overall approach to ensure fairness across Scotland, so an A in our growth is the same as an A in Aberdeen and so on, is an important feature of an external national qualification system. For a combination of factors, we've seen a different pattern of results, but as I've highlighted, it's really important in the conversation to repeat because of that different assessment approach over the last couple of years, we do need to treat changes and comparisons with some caution, so while you're absolutely right to highlight that the results in 2022 were higher than in 2019, it's also important to highlight that 2022 wasn't a normal year and there were differences to the way in which we awarded in 2022 compared to 2019. In the context of the attainment gap, it's also important to highlight that in 2021, with teacher judgment, there was a slightly larger attainment gap than in 2020, so again, the attainment gap has reflected the broad pattern of results that we've seen over the last few years. I realise that that's quite a long answer, but there are some complexities here that I think we need to consider quite carefully. Perhaps the biggest complexity at all is the impact of Covid-19 on the learning experience of those young people, and let's face it, the teaching environment for teachers. It's a difficult question perhaps to answer, but given that 2022 is not a direct comparator with 2019 in terms of the whole experience, where will we be in this process before we get back to a point where you could reasonably compare a year with 2019 and then reasonably measure progress or otherwise? Are we talking about next year, the year after, or when? As I highlighted, there are some decisions that we need to take in relation to 2023. Comparisons are not unimportant, but it's also important that we are cognisant of the circumstances that young people are facing and continue to face and make the right judgments in fairness to them. Although I fully appreciate that the committee is interested in national comparisons between years and making a determination on the performance good or otherwise of the Scottish education system, behind those results are individual learners who want to progress with their learning or want to go to university. The committee has done a piece of work on the attainment gap. What we were looking at was that, given the vast sums of money that we are being directed to tackle this issue, we have to have some measure, some indication of progress or otherwise. It's essential. I repeat my question. Are we talking about next year or the year after when we would reasonably be able to say, well, this is the progress that has been made over a four-year period or whatever? Just very quickly, my sense is that it will probably take us a couple of years to recover here. We saw a lot of resilience and excellence. One of the privileges of my job is to be able to work with teachers and see the output of what learners, young and old, produced. We are also very clear that there are some areas of pandemic impact that we are listening in languages or some of the practical elements in sciences, etc. Our view is that we will probably take a little while for that to fully recover. I can't really put an exact on it, but that would be my question. That's helpful. The only thing I would say is that there's a distinction between performance and the method of assessment. We've made some changes to the way in which we award, and indeed the changes to assessment over the last couple of years makes that difficult. However, as Robert has said, we may see a couple of years more of that. Thank you, Fiona. I think that Graham was looking for a date or a timeline, and he got that. If you don't mind, I can move on to questions from Michael Marra now, please. Okay. It's just a supplementary on this point. Yes, that's fine. That's fine. Thanks, convener. You already recognised the impact, as we do, on young people of the pandemic in recent years. It's also recognised in your methodology for the results that have just come out. I think that we can all see that. I suppose that one of the consequences of that is that there is a significant amount of lost learning for young people, and that's recognised in a curtailed assessment curriculum. So there's fewer things being assessed. Speaking to colleges and universities, employers, they are seeing the impact of that in the young people coming into the colleges and universities. Techniques and labs that haven't been assessed. Where do you think that lost learning should be made up? I think that what we've sought to do over the last couple of years is to make sure that we are maintaining the credibility of the qualifications, so therefore we're focusing on the things that are important or most important in terms of assessment and freeing up as much learning and teaching time as we can. I think that I would absolutely acknowledge that learning and teaching has been impacted. I think that we all would think that learning and teaching has been impacted by the pandemic, but in the arrangements that we've made, including with specific qualifications, so for example some licence to practice qualifications is actually really critical that that learning still takes place and is recognised as having taken place. But we've made a judgment, and we've made a judgment not just on our own but with teachers, with the wider system, on what adjustments that we can make, which both recognise—I think that's really a key point that I'm trying to highlight here—the reality of the disruption that young people face and the disruption to learning. We also recognise that in fairness to them, we need to make appropriate judgments about those assessment arrangements that can be shifted. I was promise to answer your question about the specific thing about where that's the catch-up, if you like. I mean, I have to say that I've heard some pretty positive feedback from colleges and universities about that system-wide approach to ensuring that we both take cognisance of the fact that some learners will have faced some challenges and the ability of the system to provide that support where it's needed and to focus on the most important issues. As I've said, and I'll continue to say through the next couple of hours, I think that we've seen remarkable— So you think that colleges and universities should make up that gap? No, I know what I'm saying is that I think that the education system has worked together to ensure that we put appropriate arrangements in place to address any of those issues. With respect, I mean, the feedback that I've had is that those gaps are definitely there, and your methodology has already said, recognises that those gaps are there. I'm not sure I'm hearing where you think that that should be made up, because, for instance, if it's a school leaver or somebody who's left school and going somewhere else, is it the college or the university that should make up that loss learning? Well, I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I mean, because I think that that's dependent on the circumstances of the individual learner, their achievements and what they're going on to do. I mean, I think what I've sought to set out is, as far as SQA qualifications are concerned, we've made a judgment about the adjustments that can be made to maintain the credibility of the qualifications so learners can move on with confidence. And if there are issues to address further down the line, then the education system is working together to do that. Where is that happening? That's my question, so I genuinely would like to know where that is. Well, I think that, well, certainly in the context of the discussions that we have with universities and colleges, I think that we've absolutely taken a system-wide approach in making sure that young people can make progress. I mean, the qualifications that learners have got over the last three years remain credible and remain such that learners can move on with confidence, and I think that that's the key message here. Okay, thank you. I wondered, Robert, did you want to say anything on that, that you're okay? I mean, obviously as someone who used to work in a college, you know, I think obviously colleges are well placed to work with learners, and we see lots of examples of colleges supporting learners from different life journeys, and it's not just unique to the pandemic, and it's a really critical sector that we work very closely with, and I feel quite strongly that they should be well placed to support that. Thank you, Robert. I think that Bob Doris has got a supplementary on this thread. Can we just, just very briefly on it, because it's kind of the expression of lost learning, and there's a question later on, not only a part of this later on, I would ask that later on, because we're talking about lost learning. Lost learning is because of the disruption of Covid, but also because of a slimmed-down syllabus or a slimmed-down external examination diet, and we're getting that again next year, and I just want to be clear that the language is used. We're talking about lost learning. We're talking about lost learning because young people who have gaps in their learning skills were not on. Are we talking about lost learning because of a slimmed-down syllabus in the classroom, which are two different things? So I'd like to be clear about the language, and finally, Michael Marra, I don't think, did get an answer to his point about where is this mapped, where are the knock-on effects to lost learning? So, for example, in science, where it's heavily content-based, building blocks of learning, are there active discussions with universities? Because if you sit a bit out of the syllabus, that has been picked up in first year undergraduate level, so where's that mapped and where's it reported? Just to be clear, the course specifications remain in place. The adjustments that we've made are to assessment, so we've made it clear. For example, course work takes up quite a lot of time, both for learners and for learning and teaching. Removing that ensures that I'll just have a drink. What we sought to do is to seek to release additional learning and teaching time, so there's more time. I don't use the term lost learning. I think that we accept that some young people have had disruption to their learning, and what we sought to do is seek to minimise the impact of that through the measures that we've taken. A young person getting a higher this year or a last year or the year before can have confidence in that qualification in order that they progress to their next stage in learning or indeed. We've worked very closely with all parts of the education system to ensure that we do that. It's a really important message that the qualifications that young people have achieved through the Covid years remain credible. It's just a terminology question, and I guess that the answer would be great if that broke the possible. For me to understand better, the syllabus did not shrink, the content did not shrink and won't shrink in the coming year either. It's what's externally assessed will be narrowed to allow more focus on teaching and learning. Is that a better way of putting it? Exactly. I want to ask about equalities. Can you expand a bit on what the relationship is between the better attainment gap in terms of the grades awarded and the attainment gaps that are identified in the SQA's Equalities Monitoring report? Since 2020, we have provided equalities analysis as part of our awarding. We have provided some material across a range of protected characteristics, not just the attainment gap, but other gaps that exist in Scottish education as part of our responsibilities to ensure that we seek to explain what those are. That material and analysis is included in the package of materials that we produce on results day. Prior to the pandemic, that was done later in the process because some of that data comes from the Scottish Government, so that's not data that we hold. Indeed, during our awarding processes, and it's part of our responsibilities to ensure fairness, we don't actually know the circumstance. When our teacher is marking an exam script or undertaking an assessment, they will not know the individual circumstances of that learner in making that judgment. That's an important part of the fairness and credibility of the approach that we take, but we recognise that our assessments need to be fair at the point that they're taken, reflecting the fact that young people may well have different learning experiences and face different circumstances during their education, but we do provide some further information in relation to those gaps in the report. Is there a specific issue in relation to that analysis? I'm interested to know how you use it. When I think back on the unfairness that some children in my constituency experienced in the lower SIMD areas in terms of assessment, I'm just interested in how the SQA uses your equality data to ensure fairness. I don't know if your colleagues have further to add. Members will recognise that we will see variability in the outcomes of awarding. All systems do what we're seeking to ensure through equalities impact assessments, and so on, is to ensure that the method of assessment that we have is fair and credible. I suppose that it will be helpful to hear how you've used that data to ensure that, in what changes have you made, have you made changes ever based on the data that you've gathered that shows the disparity for, I suppose, children with additional support needs or children with young people in SIMD? We have a range of assessment arrangements in place every year, and we also provided data on results day around the assessment arrangements that have been put in place and have been requested and put in place by schools and colleges across the year. That includes a range of measures from additional time for an exam, for special arrangements, for scribing and other things. I think that it's really important that the committee is aware that we absolutely play our part in making sure that the arrangements for assessment are such that they recognise that some young people may require additional support. Obviously, in 2020 and 2021, schools were responsible for making sure that those arrangements were in place. What we reflect on and demonstrate through our assessment arrangements is that we consider those issues in discussions with schools and make sure that those special arrangements are in place. As part of the development of qualifications, Robert can say a little bit more about that, that we look at equality's considerations and, of course, the modifications to assessment or subject to equality's analysis, etc. We are seeking to ensure that there is a distinction between the way in which we assess and the outcomes. We are reporting on the outcomes, but we take every measure to ensure that our assessments are fair and fair to every learner, irrespective of their circumstances, at the point at which those assessments are undertaken. We would all accept that you have had many discussions in the committee about the attainment gap and the measures that are being taken forward to address the attainment gap. Our part of our role is to report on that, but Robert might want to say a little bit about the development of qualifications and sales. I suppose that we should be assured that we take a lot of care and attention in things like that. We reflect on equality's reports in things such as the context of assessment. We want to try to create a wide variety of assessment support and assessment approaches that would ensure that a broader scope of learners can access them. We have a strong part to play in our actual qualification portfolio. I could take an example of the Scots language award, which has a big uptake across sectors and is pulling in a lot of learners who were previously quite disenfranchised and are recognising that they can engage very positively in something like that. It is a language that they recognise and can progress within their performance across the curriculum and is improving on that basis. There is a whole range of initiatives that we support that are reflective of what comes out of our quality monitoring reports that help us to ensure that we play our part along with partners. Can you tell me some more? That Scots language on-screen is interesting. Yes, it is obviously. Since about 2015, we have had to put in place a new award to study Scots in Scottish schools. Sorry, no, you misunderstand. It was good to have a specific example there of something. Do you have some more examples that you could share with the committee? Sorry, we have put in a whole range of awards. If you like, we have reached out with a modern language for life and work award, a religion and belief award, a leadership award. We have tried to recognise a broader range of skills within the senior phase. For us, it is important that we do not see moving forward the senior phase as just being about greedy national courses, that it is a mixed economy of provision and that it is all accredited against the SCQF, the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework. A lot of that unitised smaller chunks of learning that can be accredited and certificated are worth equal celebration as are traditional qualifications. I think that the presence of that type of qualification ensures that we bring more learners into play. I said previously that my own backgrounds in the college sector and one of the privileges in that area was unearthing some diamonds and taking the myth. Issues of the education is not for them or achievement and attainment is not for them. That whole part of utilising a full catalogue of qualifications and us collectively celebrating the importance of those qualifications has got a part to play in the context of the qualities. It is an important piece here around the accessibility of our qualifications. We have a wide offer, as I have already said. There is a huge focus on national fires and advanced fires, understandably so, but there is a wide range of awards that we offer. I think that we have seen in recent years more take-up of some of those qualifications so that they are offered within schools and colleges, school-college partnerships, the development of the foundation apprenticeships, for example, so that there is diversity and choice in the offer that we have. Those include a range of assessment methods, including internally assessed awards, when a learner is ready, rather than in the spring of each year. There are lots of choices that we offer. Can I ask you how you ensure that assessment methods do not under or overstate the attainment gaps? I think that what we seek to do is provide in the development of our qualifications working closely with teachers. It is really important that we have national qualifications subject teams, teachers setting and marking exams, so that we ensure that the qualifications are accessible to all. We would reflect on the fact that the learning and teaching experience might be different before that point. Indeed, there may be variation in performance. We have seen that for many years in Scotland, but we have a responsibility to ensure that our assessment approach is fair and that we seek to do that. I think that the experience of the last couple of years and the move to teacher judgment has, despite what I have said around the comparisons, raised the question around attainment gaps. It is important to highlight that the part that we play in assessing young people and reporting on the performance of the education system is fair and our systems and the checks and balances that we have in the system ensure that they are. I think that the question is quite difficult to answer on the basis that we are reporting on the outcomes of learning and teaching. We need to demonstrate that our assessment processes are fair and that the attainment gap may vary or change for other reasons. That is a good question. It is a challenging question, but the key thing for me is to make sure that assessment is as valid as it can be. It assesses the skills, knowledge and understanding that is designed for. If we are trying to assess more of a process and a reflective part of that in lessons learned and so on, an examination assessment is not the most appropriate and we need to have another type of assessment. Obviously, that is more internally focused and right and proper. Once you have decided on what is the most valid way to do it, how do you assess it? Clearly, examinations can standardise and help to give you that level playing field. However, there are certain areas where that is not appropriate and we need elements such as close work, personalisation and choice. The key thing for me is just a bit of caring attention to the actual assessment approaches that we are set up to make sure that it is as broad and accessible as possible and also assessing the skills that it is designed to assess. We are also trying to deal with that challenge of how we reliably ensure fairness in terms of that assessment. If we look at it, there are challenges and it is all about balance. I was a bit surprised that you struggled to answer that last question because I thought that it was fundamental to what you were doing to make sure that what you were measuring did not overestimate or underestimate the state, but you have admitted that it was difficult, so I am puzzled by that. We will move on. Following Ken Muir's evidence to the committee in March, David Middleton, the chair, rebutted some of the evidence. He said that he was surprised and disappointed and he played back Professor Muir's words to him. Did he agree with David Middleton's statement? You are quite right that the chair of the SQA replied to some of the commentary and the subsequent reporting. It was quite stinging, and I was quite surprised by it. Does that reveal a tension in the whole reform debate? Do you disagree more broadly with Professor Muir's approach? What does that reveal? We have not seen that before, and I wonder if you could just tell us what is going on. I do not think that it revealed attention. Why is it necessary? I think that it revealed a response to what was said. It is fair to say that it came as a surprise. I think that there was a lot of material in Ken's report that we agreed with and that we had the opportunity to discuss a number of issues with Professor Muir during the course of his review. Me and my senior team did, as did the wider organisation, and we are grateful to Ken for that. We were surprised by some of Ken's comments and disappointed by some of Ken's subsequent comments, because they did not align with the experience and the discussion that we had or, in some respects, the tenor of the report itself. The chair's statements were from the chair. We would be free to ask the chair himself his thinking, but it reflects the broader feeling across the organisation after Ken's comments. Can you tell us a bit more about what you disagreed with what you said? I think that the chair's statement highlights some of those areas around what Ken said at the committee. I think that we agreed with— No, I just want to know what you agreed to the statement. You must know what was in the statement. What was it that you did not agree with? I do not have the statement. It was a pretty big statement. I would have thought that you would have it with you today. I absolutely recall the statement and the context in which the statement was made. I think that the chair was reflecting on the issues that Ken had raised at the meeting. That is fine for you and I. I do not have anything more to say about that. I agree with that. Can we move on? What I am getting at here is that there are many in the profession who think that there is going to be no change as a result of the process. All that is going to result in a change in the names and everything else will carry on. The exchange between the chairman and the professor I think perhaps with a bit of a lid into that. Can you convince us that reforms will happen? Can we move on from that place? I do have the statement in front of me and I am happy to quote from the statement that says that we agree with Professor Mead that education reform is needed with learners at the centre and there is real appetite for change within the SQA, so I do not think it does. I do not think that it does highlight what you have just said. That is a no surprise and disappointed bit. If it is off that topic, that would be the problem. It is off that topic. Broad general education to the senior phase, there has been a lot of comment about the stark contrast between the two and many blame the SQA for that stark contrast. Is what your assessment of that? Do you think that you are responsible for it and if not, why not? I have been partied to a lot of conversations over many years both in SQA and previous to that around the transition between the broad general education and the senior phase. The curriculum for excellence was developed on the basis that there was a 3 to 18 curriculum and there was a smooth transition through the broad general education to the senior phase. I think that there has been a lot of focus on ensuring that transitions at all points in the education system are as smooth and as effective as possible both from the early years into primary and so on and similarly from primary into secondary. I think that we also appreciate that there has been a particular focus on the move from BGE to the senior phase. What we seek to do and we have to do as part of our responsibilities is to provide clarity on the expectations and the education system expects clarity on what it is and on how we develop the qualifications, what skills, knowledge and understanding are expected in order to gain a qualification. There is a degree of formality about that. It is important that we do that in the best way possible, drawing on the curriculum for excellence levels and the work that Education Scotland has done around ensuring that there is a clear understanding with the system on what the CFE levels are through the broad general education to ensure that that smooth transition. I think that there is always room for improvement. It is more than that, is it not? It is more than just room for improvement. There has been a lot of criticism that the two-term dash to the exams when we have been moving from a broad general education in the principles of our curriculum for excellence straight into a mad dash for exams. That is your fault, is it not? No, I do not think that it is. If you go back to building the curriculum documents as part of the development of CFE, I know that Louise Hayward will be looking at some of those issues. I think that there was an aspiration that we would be moving to ensure that there was a smoother transition into the senior phase and that there would be flexibility in the curriculum design and development in ensuring that young people would have more choice about when they sat exams and whether some exams should be bypassed and so on. I think that those are issues that continue to be discussed within the Scottish Education curriculum choices and issues around curriculum design in an empowered system. We are taken at a local level and we have a very clear offer in terms of our qualifications and clear requirements and we continue and absolutely we are developed in concert with the system and we continue to discuss to ensure that they work as well as they can. It is a legitimate issue for Louise Hayward to consider as part of her review of assessment and qualifications because we all want to make sure that our learners have the best experience. Assessment does not start in the senior phase. Assessment is part and parcel of learning and teaching. Good assessment is part and parcel of good learning and teaching. We all want to ensure that there is the smoothest transition for our children between the experience that they have in primary school and the early parts of secondary school and into the senior phase. Some have argued that we should be stripping back exams to quite a significant effect. Do you agree with that? I know that the committee took evidence from Gordon Stobart and I think that Gordon Stobart's review is part of the OECD work. Did he highlight whether we should have S4, S5 and S6 exams? As I say, that is something for Louise Hayward to consider. When we look back, in a previous life, I chaired the Curriculum for Excellence management board when I worked in the Government. I was certainly party to conversations at that time. It is part of the development of the Curriculum for Excellence that young people would perhaps undertake a different pattern of qualifications over their senior phase and that there was an aspiration of that. I think that there has been some developments in that context. I was just asking what you think. I know that you have described what other people thought that what I want to know is what you think. I think that Robert Scott is also wanting to answer and say what he thinks as well on this one. The honest truth is that I want to make sure that young people have the best learning and teaching experience that they can and that they take qualifications at the point at which that makes sense to them and that young people have choice and are able to exercise that choice through the work that the school and college does. That is a brilliant non-answer. You are looking as if that is not quite the answer that you wanted. Perhaps that is the answer that I am a little bit worried about. I want a full catalogue to be recognised. I want people to have a choice. I want them to be less absolute focus on national courses and I want us to celebrate all qualifications against the SCQF. I want to have the flexibility of that within the senior phase to celebrate the move through from the broad general education. All types of qualifications that we have have their place and are key and are important, but we need to recognise the totality of what young people have. It is a mix of hires, national fives and national progression awards. If they are interested in sound production at a local college or whatever, it is part of the senior phase and we all collectively celebrate that. Thank you very much for that. Can I hand over to Cocab Stewart? I am going to look at outcomes and move things forward a wee bit. I just wanted to start off on a positive thing. On results day, a quote from an open letter from a range of Scotland's employers, representative groups and others was published and they said that we want to reassure you that we recognise and value your qualifications as much as any other year, and the skills that you have developed and will continue to develop will play a crucial role in ensuring a bright future for businesses in Scotland and our economy. I am sure that our youngsters are very heartened to hear that, but we do know that we are acutely aware of the changing needs of the employment sector. I am not just talking about business here, I am also talking about social care and public sector, covering all of those. We know that there is a changing need and some of the jobs do not yet exist, so that is a challenge regarding the skills, knowledge and attitudes and behaviours that are required. How does the SQA work with employers and further and higher education providers to ensure that the qualifications support candidates are young people to the next stage of their learning journey? I agree that it was really pleasing to see the open letter from Sandy Begby and others on behalf of businesses on results day, because it is a really important message. The credibility, public confidence and qualifications is important for learners. Our work with employers is threaded through the work that we do to develop our qualifications from the creation of new qualifications to the validation of group awards. There is lots of engagement with employers through the detailed process of individual qualifications, including the care sector or the construction sector. Some employer organisations are the convening space for businesses as well. We work closely with employer organisations and sector skills councils for many of our qualifications. The Scottish Training Federation sits on our advisory council. The director of the CBI in the past has been on our board, for example. Employers have also played an important role in the development of our next generation of higher national qualifications. A lot of that work is done in the detail of what we do. Of course, it is important to highlight that many employers offer and deliver our qualifications. I would also say that the engagement that we have with the college sector specifically and Skills Development Scotland is really important here in the work that we do to ensure that our qualifications and the assessment approach that supports our qualifications are right. That is key. Do you think that the SQA is flexible enough to be able to do so? I am interested in the future, and skills are changing and demands are changing. I am hearing from employers that crafting a new diet will also require assessment on a robust level that is recognised. Do you think that the SQA is flexible and robust enough to be able to respond to that need? What about the timescales? We know that the skills are shortages. It would be good to know how long it can take to develop a qualification and then assess it and people coming through. Robert can say a little bit more about the detailed development process. We are always taking work forward with a number of organisations, including employers and representatives to consider what further developments we need to take forward on our qualifications. As I mentioned, the next generation of HN qualifications is a key case and point. There is always more that we would like to do. We have quite an extensive catalogue of qualifications and it can be difficult to satisfy the needs of all in all of that, both in terms of making sure that that catalogue continues to develop and be updated and also with the development of new qualifications. That is something that, in the context of reform and in developing a new qualification body, is one area that I would certainly like to explore further. There is certainly no shortage of ambition either from employers or from the SQA to do that. It is fair to say that we always have to take some quite difficult choices on those issues with fixed capacity. Robert might want to say a little bit more about the development process. It is really good to put some great work going on on HN next generation, for example. Your point about timeliness is a well-made point. One of the things that we can do within HN next generation, for example, which we have agreed in partnership with the college sector and also with university partners as well, is that we can prototype. We can quickly develop and prototype approaches to assessment and qualifications and try things out. It is a space that is probably slightly less political, less content, and there is probably more opportunity for us to do that type of thing. Things like meta-skills are one of the key things—attitude, resilience, sustainability. We have a requirement that all next-gen HNs have a demonstrated element of sustainability within the teaching, learning and assessment process. That prototyping is something that we are doing differently here, where we are taking a few areas and creating a minimal viable product. We are taking it out with what we call pilot colleges that have applied to us through a bidding process. We are then prototyping. We did it with radio and TV, for example. We did one year of prototyping on television, and then we are doing an evaluation with the learners at the heart of that, and then, obviously, that informs the further refinement and then pulling it out to the wider sense of centres. I think that that type of model allows us to maybe be a bit more fleet of fruit than maybe we were traditionally. Thank you for that. Ross Greer, are you ready to go through your questions? That's all right, convener. Just to have a wee supplementary on that there as well. Obviously, we learned about wellbeing being absolutely central to young people's learning and performance. It's really interesting to hear you talking about that evaluation work there. What are young people telling you about their learning experiences? How is that idea of keeping their wellbeing at the centre of reform happening with that just now? What differences has that made? That's a really important point. I mentioned assessment arrangements earlier. We are able to put in place, with schools and colleges, particular arrangements for learners who may find it difficult, for example, to sit in an exam hall or indeed undertake an exam in particular set of circumstances. There's quite a lot of flexibility that we have building on an approach that's long-standing, which has the support of the system to make sure that we are playing our part in supporting young people and the arrangements that may suit them best. Over the past couple of years, through the national qualifications group, we have sought to ensure that we are providing as much support and also signalling sources of support to young people. It's undoubtedly been a tough couple of years, particularly over the past couple of years, for many young people. We are making sure that we are taking every step that we can to signal the support that is available and to play our part in all of that, as well as that very clear additional support that we can provide through assessment arrangements. See when you are talking about the assessment itself there as well. We heard some views previously from children who were care-experienced or neurodiversity or whatever, and there were some positives to pull from Covid as well that they felt too. What has actually happened in the ground? What kind of things are now in place that went there before for young people? That point about flexibility is really important. We have certainly seen an increase in the number of young people who wish to undertake assessments in separate accommodation, for example, or who have extra time to undertake assessments. Through our evaluation of our approach, we have absolutely sought the views of learners on the experience of the past couple of years. We will continue to do that this year with a further approach to evaluation. It is really important that we listen. We do a lot of work with Who Care Scotland, for example, in relation to supporting and celebrating the success of learners from care-experienced backgrounds. It is really important that we are listening and mindful of the experience that young people have had and that we take every effort that we can to put arrangements in place that are appropriate for them. We provide some data on results day in relation to assessment arrangements, for example. The point that Robert Smith made in relation to the accessibility and the choice that our qualifications provide to suit the needs of a range of learners is really important. I think that we have highlighted already that there is obviously a big focus on hires, national fires and advanced hire, but we have a wide range of qualifications that will suit the needs of many learners, including those who may have a range of different experiences or wish to take a different set of qualifications. Robert, please. Very quickly, to back up that, but also in the interests of promoting our strong catalogue, Mental Health Awareness Award, which we put in place fairly recently. We have had thousands and thousands of amazing interests of uptake. It is a critical example of where there is a recognition that we have a part to play to help to support that awareness and people have some practical techniques that can help them with that. On that particular award, Robert Smith is absolutely right to highlight it. There has been some fantastic engagement with that particular award, and some school-wide and outwith the context of S4 to S6. Some learners are looking at that, for example, and S is part of our S3 learning. It is not just in the senior phase, and that is all great. Thanks, convener. The Mental Health Awareness Award is excellent, so I am glad that that came up on the record. Throughout this morning, the study guides that were produced this spring have come up a number of times. I am sure that you are aware of the criticism that a lot of young people had of those guides and some of the advice in them that they felt was patronising. For example, the Advanced Higher Modern Studies paper encourages young people to make sure that they answer the question that they asked in the exam. The higher physics and chemistry papers urge them. It is always a good idea to spell words correctly. Higher geography says that you should read the question. Do you accept now that at least some of the content in those papers was patronising and not of particularly high value to a 17-year-old? The revision support was put in place because there was additional disruption to learning. Of course, we needed to provide revision support across all 120-plus courses. We sought to provide as much revision support as we could while maintaining the credibility of the qualifications. There is a judgment—I can talk a little bit about those subjects for which we were only providing a brief study guide—it was a study guide, as opposed to revision support. Those tips were absolutely well meant. Having sat through many grade boundary meetings, without wishing to trivialise it, answering the question is important when you are taking exams and that remains a credible piece of advice for all learners. However, when we were looking at what we could do in revision support, we were looking at the combination of the modifications to assessment that had already been made and what more we could do that would be helpful to learners but not undermine the credibility of the qualifications. It was for that reason that the revision support for different subjects, as you have highlighted, was different. In some cases, we felt that we could not go any further than we already had through the modifications to assessment. I accept that some courses were modified more than others or in ways that were significantly different. In hindsight, it would have been better with the study material that you published in spring to re-emphasise, for those courses, the modifications that had already been made rather than published papers that, on the face of it, looked much thinner. Absolutely. That is what we effectively did within a few days of the revision support being sent out. I would acknowledge that there was quite a lot of noise about revision support, but we also did get some really positive feedback on the revision support. Robert and I sat with markers and principal assessors during the marking process on the grade boundary process. We saw that revision support had worked. Robert mentioned, for English, that being able to specify the texts that were being presented to learners provided assistance to learners in focusing their study. We do not have that assessment approach for every subject, but we could not do it for every subject. For maths, we provided information about what would not be assessed. We saw evidence that that helped learners. I accept that there was criticism. Overall, the revision support helped learners who had faced disruption and needed to be taken in combination with the modifications assessment. There is always learning from those things. We had never provided revision support before, and we absolutely understand the point that you are making, but the revision support worked. I agree that some of the revision support was of really high quality. It was that variation that caused a lot of frustration for young people. The variation did reflect the fact that the modification was needed. In that case, the issue is an initial communication failure. How were young people involved in the development of revision materials? You have young people in the national qualifications group, a learner panel, and how are they involved in the construction of that? Did they flag up at any point that it is perhaps about patronising to say that it is a good idea to spell words correctly? Robert can come in here, because he was closer to that process of engagement than I was, but we did get good feedback. Obviously, some elements of the revision support were difficult to share in advance, because of the nature of them. In particular, given that it was not clear whether the scenario 2, which invoked revision support, would be put in place, so I hope that you understand that we had to be quite careful. The specifics about, for example, an exam paper cannot be shared in advance, but there is nothing compromising about sharing in advance that the paper is going to encourage them to spell words correctly. I do not know if you would share that in advance with them that some concerns might be raised. Ross, can we perhaps let Robert answer with some of this? We did. We did do that. Where we could, we trialled some of that support and actually got quite positive feedback. Obviously, those points that you referenced have to be taken in the context of the full guide, rather than just those particular points around that. There were other elements of the guidance. You could argue that it would be more valuable in that context, but we did some work with young learners. Certainly, I saw some feedback that was relatively positive. However, it is a good point for reflection that it always is, and how we position the revision support in the context of the full modifications is certainly the learning point for me. I have sat in the committee for six years, five years ago. It did a major report into the SQA under your predecessor Fiona. A consistent point of criticism of the organisation has been a perceived defensiveness around external feedback advice, criticism, etc. We have gone through the process where Cameron Garrett, the first member of the youth parliament on the national qualifications group, was critical of how young people were treated through that process. Sophie Reid, who succeeded in it, is now being critical of a lack of communication, a breakdown of trust. I am going to pre-empt your answer somewhat and presume that you are going to say that there has been improvement over recent years, so accepting that that is the premise. Why do you think that nobody else sees that improvement? It would be fair to say that nobody else sees that improvement. We have worked tirelessly to ensure that there is effective communication about the changes. It has been a challenging context for everyone who works in education, including SQA. We absolutely have moved to engage much more strongly with learners than has been the case in the past. I think that there have been times where there have been differences in view. We have had to take some difficult decisions. For example, Cameron Garrett was particularly concerned about symmetric appeals, which could go up and down, but that is a really good example of the fact that we have to work on the basis of the evidence in front of us. The central principle of demonstrated attainment is such that we have a responsibility, including a statutory responsibility, to ensure that we award only on the basis of the evidence that is presented to us. That did not indicate a lack of engagement. That indicated that we needed to take a difficult decision around some of those issues. I think that there is always more to do. SQA and many other organisations over the past few years have been in their journey around some of those issues. We have had to flex our approach in very demanding circumstances where there has been very little time for reflection. We have had to move very quickly. However, we have sought, as far as possible, to take people with us, to take the wider education community with us—learners, parents and those who are also delivering across education as much as we can. However, there is absolutely more that we will continue to do in that context. I am afraid that we will have to move on in the purpose of time. We will come back to those of this time. It is just a yes and a no, so if there is time at the end, that would be ideal. Can I ask Bob Doris now? He has some questions. Thank you. Earlier on, we got good clarity that the syllabus for students didn't shrink and the course requirements in terms of content didn't shrink. However, what was narrowed was the external examined aspects of the curriculum. That was helpful. We know that that is going to be the same situation again in the current year for the exam results, which will come out in August 2023. When would SQA anticipate returning back to the pre-prendemic breadth of content for external examination? That would be helpful. Given the fact that of a deal of consistency with August 23 awards and August 22 awards, are those by and large going to be comparable? Some of the issue is about comparability. That would be helpful, for time constraints. I will roll on to a third aspect of the question. I have got a note of the threes later and answers to all three. That would be really helpful. Professor Lewis Hayward is looking at what should be externally examined and that balance more generally. He might have anticipated that the SQA does not return to the previous levels of external assessment because Professor Hayward might recommend something completely different. Why would you return to the old way of doing things when we are on a transition stage and the new way of doing things? There are three aspects to that, which I hope that you can pick up all three. I will try to be brief for a number of parts of that. On the narrowing of external assessment, we have confirmed the position for this year. In 2023-24, we will consider with the system whether modifications should continue further into 2023-24 or not. We have not made a decision yet on that, but we have made a decision in relation to this academic year, the modifications assessment. My own view is that, across a lot of the courses, coursework has been taken out, not universal. I think that there is a lot of support for coursework and for ensuring that young people have the ability to undertake practical work. It remains part of the course specification and I hope that, in terms of learning and teaching, that that will be covered. I would like to see that move back as soon as we can, but we need to remain flexible to the circumstances that learners have faced. In a small number of subjects, we moved back in 2021-22. In relation to comparability, as I highlighted in my opening statement, there are issues that we will need to confirm with the system. We have confirmed modifications to assessment. We need to reflect on the experience of 2022 in relation to generous awarding. We also need to consider that in the context of the wider education system, so we will not need to consider that further. I would like there to be some consideration of that bearing in mind the circumstances that are in place at the time. For Louise Hayward's review, we are playing a full part in Louise's work, and Louise will wish to consider what the balance of assessment is, both when and how. My only note of caution around change is that the feedback from the last round of reforms to qualifications was that we needed to make sure that implementation was considered very carefully. That included investment in the system and capacity building in the system. Reforms to qualifications can take some time, and we need to keep that in mind in the context of how we move forward. I am conscious that you have said that you are not sure if it is going to be comparable, rather than yes or no. You have said that you might continue with the same method for the following academic year, but you might not. You would quite like to go back to some of the old ways of working. Lots of the systems that are in flux at the moment, the stability would be really good for young people in schools. I am just a wee bit disappointed that we do not have more clarity from the SQA in relation to that. We had a conversation with the system yesterday rather than through the NQ group. I think that the NQ group was conscious that we had put certainty in place for the modifications, so there is certainty around learning and teaching. That has been welcomed by the system. It is important that we need to work at pace, but we also need to ensure that we are reflecting with the system on the experience of the past year in order to make those decisions. I do not need to misunderstand the fact that I am not being unequivocal in my response, but it is important, as we have done, to consider those issues further and to be flexible in our thinking, because we do not know what the year will bring. That has been a really important part of our approach to date. Again, on the last point about reflections on Hayward or the modifications, and I agree with what Fiona Hyslop said about what we want to give certainty to. By the end of the year, we want to give certainty as to how we are mapping it out. We have to continuously reflect on things. There might be some aspects of the sampling that was introduced in the modifications or exam size. Those are things that we have to give some reflections on. I feel very strongly that we need to put coursework back in in certain areas, because I think that they are doing an important construct in terms of what we are trying to assess. However, I think that, in terms of pointing towards Hayward, we need to get that concrete information out to teachers and learners in good time, but we should always be reflecting. I will not come back in, but I thought that coursework never left because it was part of the syllabus. It could have been internally assessed rather than a term of text down with examinations, but I will leave that sitting there. I know, sorry, Robert, that Graham has a wee supplementary that you might be able to all wrap in on the same topic, so it might all cover in it. Thank you, because this kind of moves on to something that I was wanting to ask later on. We are not just talking about the next year or the next two years. We have a cohort of young people. The impact of the pandemic on whom is going to be there. There is going to be a legacy impact for years to come. It is important that we learn the lessons of the past three years, but we need to learn that to adapt our approach to assessment. There is a level playing field for those young people. It is really important to understand that you said that you were feeding in to Liz Hayward's work. What is it that you are feeding in? What are the lessons that we learned from the past three years? Whatever we learned, we could be doing better in terms of approaches to certification, the impact of the distribution of grades. All young people's learning journeys. You talked earlier about the modification arrangements being in place. You talked about alternative evidence. What are you sitting today that you can take away from the past three years that you think should be embedded in the approach moving forward? I think that that is an important point. It is absolutely critical that we learn from the experience, not just from the past two years, but from the experience of the implementation of curriculum for excellence and our aspirations of curriculum for excellence. We have done some work on that, which has been shared with Louise Hayward. We have also shared some work in relation to how other systems organise themselves to deliver assessments, because there are differences across the world and different arrangements. However, we need to look at that as a system. That is not just about what the qualification is. We absolutely do. It is not just about the qualification's body. It is also about the implications for those who are delivering qualifications, those who are in receipt of that learning and teaching and those who are achieving qualifications. We have also done some evaluation work on the alternative certification approach in 2021, and that will be published soon. There is an evaluation plan around 2022, so that involves discussions with learners, practitioners, school leaders and others, and college leaders, to ensure that that experience is reflected. What have you been told about the approach that was taken? You will need to await the full detail in the evaluation, but we have shared some messages with the INC group and others. In 2021, with the alternative certification model, it is quite clear that some learners had a very positive experience, but some learners did not. There was certainly variation in the experience. I think that there was some reflection from practitioners about the role of teacher judgment in the process of delivering qualifications. There is absolutely learning for SQA in the work that we did both in 2021, and I am sure that there certainly will be for 2022, but there is also wider learning for the system. I think that that will inform our consideration of what Scotland wants and what Scotland will need going forward. That will be really important. SQA also sits on a lot of evidence. I have had discussions with Louise Hayward to ensure that, and skill and expertise of the staff of SQA, it will be really important to ensure that that breadth of experience, not just in SQA, but across the system, is brought to bear in considering the assessment and qualification system that Scotland wants. I know that Robert Cones wants to come in. It is important that that evaluation information is provided, because you should not be left to mark your own homework. I think that it is really important. I think that the committee will look forward to seeing this evaluation work. I am just to let Robert Cones come in. That was all. Thank you more on the broader question about lessons, lessons and reflections. For me, it is not just pandemic-related, but it has been accelerated via the pandemic. Will there be time and space for innovation and assessment? Is it critical? I think that the mistakes that we have made in the past, we have tried to push through changes too quickly without properly resourcing it. That is across the system. It would just mean SQA resource, but I mean across the system. I think that there is time and space for people to get the handle. I think that a continued journey towards understanding standards, the work of our SQA staff did amazing work in the pandemic around trying to exemplify and help centres understand standards. One of the benefits of the pandemic—a few benefits—is that young teachers are much more attuned with assessment standards than they were ever before, because they have had to get to grips with it. I think that the rich understanding standards, what that front-end quality assurance is really important. Harnessing the role of technology and supporting teaching, learning and assessment is another critical thing that we need to learn. Those are just some of the things that we asked about. What are the reflections that come to mind? No, that will be fed in to the review. No, thank you for that. I have purposely been watching the clocks. I want to spend the last session, the last part of this session, to do some questions around the reform agenda. With that, I want to hand over to start off this section on to Michael Marra, please. Thanks, convener. You may have picked up on the session that we had with Education Scotland prior to the summer recess, where senior officials came in and told the committee that they were not being scrapped as an organisation. It is fair to say that the Scottish Government has been very clear on that fact and on the status of the SQA. I want to ask you in the first instance what in your view will be different about Scotland's qualification agency after the process is completed. The Scottish Government has confirmed that there will be a new public body just for the points of doubt for developing and awarding qualifications, and it will replace SQA. We are clear and I am clear that SQA is being replaced. This is a Scottish Government education reform programme. We are engaging closely with the Scottish Government and others on that and participating in that reform programme, as you would expect. I have highlighted the skills and expertise of staff right across SQA, and I think that it is important that it is brought to bear in considering new as well. I think that there are a number of signals around how the cabinet secretary wishes to see change. She has already highlighted potentially some changes to the governance structure. Of course, the Scottish Government set the context for the governance structure within SQA as a public body at the moment, so some changes to the governance structure. In particular, in the context of some of the reform work, there is a deadline of the end of the year to work on a target operating model for the new body, which will be looking at user-led, service-led approaches to delivery. That will be really important in considering some of the changes that we might make. It is also important to highlight, and the Hayward reviews come up in the context of the discussion today, that, in considering the form of a new public body, we need to consider a function very clearly. If the conclusion of Louise Hayward's work is that we have a different assessment and qualification system in Scotland, that will have a bearing—we have alluded to that in the context of the developments around qualifications and the resource that is required—that will have a bearing on what the new qualifications body looks like. There is one element of function in broad terms, which is not yet clear, and the Scottish Government is considering further the accreditation function within SQA. That work has not yet been completed, so that is still one element. On that point, Ken Muir's report was really quite clear on that, and I recommend the separation of awarding functions from accreditation and regulation. Do you think that that is going to be taken forward? That separation is a very clear recommendation. Ken Muir's report was clear in his recommendation, but the Scottish Government was also pretty clear in its response to the recommendation that they would wish to consider it further before making a final decision, and that work is under way. SQA was also clear in its response to the consultation on the Muir review about its position in relation to that, and that remains the case. You said that this is the Scottish Government process that is being led by them, but I have been passed a list of the membership of the new qualifications delivery board. There are seven members of that board, six of whom are SQA managers. I obviously have not seen the list that you have, but I do not think that that is quite correct. I am more than happy to come in here. I chair the delivery board. On that, the delivery board stress reports into the Scottish Government through the strategic board, which is chaired by them. There are a number of non-SQA members that sit on the delivery board representing the education sector across Scotland colleges, the skills and training sector, and we have a director of education. We sought nomination from school leader Scotland. We have a further external member who has experience of awarding and regulation outwith Scotland to provide an independent and external challenge. There are four non-executive directors above the board members, so that makes up 11, the majority of which six are employees of the SQA. Where I am going with that is that there is some concern expressed by members of the committee and external organisations that, just like Education Scotland, there might be a concern that what we are looking at is a rebrand here, rather than a replacement or a substantive reform. I think that through the reform programme, everybody that is involved in it is ambitious to make sure that we have a qualifications body moving forward that serves the needs of the people that we serve in the best possible way. We have touched on some of the themes in the discussion this morning. The tone, in terms of, if I can, the conclusion that the Government has come to is that this organisation, in contrast to much of your submission to the committee today and to what we have heard, is that the organisation has failed in recent years. That is the conclusion of the Government. I am afraid that it would not be scrapping the organisation otherwise. The question now is what replaces it. It strikes me that, if we are looking at a system that is driven by management of the existing organisation, and we are being told by some of the organisations that are not even being scrapped, can we really have faith that this is a reform process that is based in the needs of the people? Should it not be external voices that are being heard? Should it not be people who are represented here who are the users in the process to actually make these decisions, rather than the six SQA managers, including yourself, Mr Baxter, who I have listed on this piece of paper? The composition of the delivery board is balanced across both the skills and expertise and experience and knowledge of existing SQA staff. It will crucially involve a wider staff group, as it should, as I am sure you would support. At the same time, some external voices and engagement. However, it does not stop and start with the delivery board. This is a conversation that you may wish to have with the Scottish Government ministers about the broader education reform programme and how it interacts with the national discussion, which will obviously be broad and wide, and also Louise Hayward's review on assessment and qualifications. The what-we-do is formed on the basis of much of the discussion this morning, and quite rightly so. I think that this is quite a broad and wide conversation going on, and there will be a lot of user engagement and consultation around the process. It is important that you and the committee understand the strength of experience in the delivery board and that it does not stop there in the context of the wider reform programme. I do sit on the strategic board, but there is a wide range of stakeholders on the strategic board around reform. That is chaired by a Scottish Government civil servant. My understanding is that, as part of the work, there is a stakeholder engagement group that the Cabinet Secretary is chairing, and that group meets quite soon. It is probably not for me to talk through the detail of the Scottish Government's education reform programme, but I can give him an assurance that we will be working closely with the Scottish Government to agree the approach and our involvement in that approach to ensure that the experience and skills of staff are taken account of. Given what Michael Marra said about the membership of the review, I am concerned with the comment about the rebrand. How different and function is a national award body going to be if it is currently being reviewed by the people that are in the existing organisation? That is the seismic shift. We need a change in reform, but is it going to be significant enough to do what is expected? I think that we need to be clear about what the role of the delivery board is and what it is. The delivery board is there to fulfil a commission from the Government to come up with proposals. In doing so, the delivery board and the work that supports it will need to engage. That is part of the commission is to engage with the wide range of stakeholders to form those proposals, so it is not simply about SKI marking its own home workers as it has been characterised. I think that that is important to say. There are a number of interdependencies here to come back to your question about what is going to be different. At the same time that reform is taking place, SKI as an organisation will need to continue to deliver its existing functions. The awarding of qualifications will need to be done in a safe and secure way. To undertake a significant programme of reform at the same time of delivering existing functions is going to be a real challenge. We need to be clear about what the transition to the new organisation will be and the implications of Louise Hayward's work, the national conversation and a continued period of change for that new body once it is in existence. I think that that is the reality of where we are, but I think that we need to take a progressive look at this. It is simply not about the status quo and the absolutely issue of the committee of that. I think that the committee would recognise the challenge of undertaking both those functions at the same time, but my answer to that is why has it taken quite so long in terms of years of a transition process with a national conversation layered after a conclusion around the qualifications review? That is the point that exacerbates the problem. The issue with that is that, when I say that the organisation has failed, that is the conclusion of the ministers. You should shake your head again at that. The organisation has been closed and replaced. For decisions that it took, that is the ministerial. The cabinet secretary took those decisions. I assume that Cabinet, with the infrastructure of the First Minister, on that basis, is taking years. The problems that Mr Baxter describes in terms of running a system whilst reforming a system are of the making of that reform process. My belief that that could happen an awful lot quicker than it is at the moment. Those problems have been created by a situation that has been pulled out over a period of years. A couple of things. First of all, I do not accept what the cabinet secretary said in her rationale for change. Second of all, in the context of the speed at which reform can take place, Mike's point is really important. It is critical that we maintain continuity of delivery whilst investing in reform. To create a new qualifications body, we will need legislation. Legislation takes time. The committee will wish to scrutinise said legislation and will absolutely take its time as absolutely appropriate to do that. The programme for government that was published yesterday set out that there would be an education reform bill in this parliamentary year. On that point, it is up to Parliament to decide how quickly it scrutinises legislation and how quickly it takes and the priority it gives to it. The Government is the people who are setting the terms of how long this review process is taking. If I can, the point of how quickly we prosecute that legislation is up to us. It is not necessary for comment of other people. I think that we should do it more quickly. The problem is the review process. I was really just highlighting the fact that there are steps to go through between the transition and the transformation that we want to see. It is really important that we understand that that needs to be done properly and that it needs to be done well. That will take some time. The Government, as part of the education reform programme, has highlighted the expectation that a new body will be in place after results on 2024, and its timeline reflects that broad commitment. Our job is to make sure that we are contributing to that work, drawing on the skills and experience of SQA staff. I think that you would expect in any public sector reform programme that there is engagement with those who are currently delivering those functions. Ken Muir has been clear about the broad continuity of functions, so the point that the convener made about functions has been part of Ken's review, with the exception, as things stand, on accreditation. The issue is what further changes do we expect from our assessment and qualification system, and therefore what changes that the organisation needs to be reflected as part of that beyond what the Cabinet Secretary has already said. However, I think that detailed questions in relation to the Scottish Government's education reform programme would probably be best dealt with by the Scottish Government. I can certainly comment and happy to do so on the elements of the programme that pertain to us, and we are working hard to deliver on that. Thank you, Fiona. I have some supplementaries to come in. I have one from Stephanie and then I have one from Graham, so we will take Stephanie first. Mike, you spoke about the delivery board for Phil and a commission, and I really appreciate the fact that you need that experience, the knowledge, the skills that are actually on there, too. You get the leadership teams from the Scottish Government, SQA and Education Scotland working together within the existence governance frameworks accountability area to establish a new organisation. Is it working well and what positive progress has been made on that? I think that the engagement has been extremely good between various organisations. I think that from the announcement back in March this year, and the outcome of the Scottish Government's response to Ken Muir's report, there is quite a lot of detail around the implications of Ken Muir's report and taking it forward that needed to be worked through still at that point, and we have been seeking to do that and engaging positively around that. With any major change programme or programme of reform, it is important to set that off on the right track. The commission that is being set by the Scottish Government for the delivery board sets out a programme of deliverables or work over the next 18 months or so that will help to arrive at decisions around the nature of the new qualifications body, and that is the work that we are taking forward. We are committed to engaging with stakeholders as we take forward that work. I think that there has been discussion this morning in the committee around some of the strengths and opportunities that committee members would see for the new qualifications body, and it is really important that we explore those fully in terms of what we are able to deliver against the challenge and backdrop that is being set out. I also think that a point that is being made on a couple of occasions is that, although the focus is on structural reform of the national agencies, we do not sit in the vacuum, so looking at the implications of any change on the wider education system and the deliverability of that change, it is important that that is worked through. I do not say that from the point of view of trying to pad that out, but making sure that we get that right and that the implementation of changes is taken forward in a logical and deliverable way is absolutely where we need to get to. Thank you. I am just wondering the biggest challenges that you have come up against? I think that the biggest challenge, if I am speaking from personal capacity here as chair of the delivery board, I think is recognising the on-going challenges around delivery for SQA as an organisation and the challenge in operating environment. Successful delivering awarding, the confidence that has been talked about today, is important that we continue, not just for our learners, but for the services that we provide to through our contracts, etc., and the continuity of those. Those are big challenges that we need to recognise on Workerway 3, and resourcing becomes an important part of that. I move over to Graham now, just to keep an eye on the time. It is not just about how this is done, it is also about the appearance of how it is done. Mr Marra makes a point that, to have the SQA so dominant in this process, at face value could be questioned by those who fear rebranding and nothing more. What assurance is there? I mean real assurance that this is a genuine process to get us to a point where we need to be, where it has been made clear that we need to be, not just in terms of forming a new body, but the ethos of that body. The perfectly legitimate input that the SQA might have both in a broader sense, but also over the past two years, is taken on board, but we are looking at this afresh. How is this oversight organisation that you are running, Mr Bax, that is operating in principle, in practice, rather? I think that the oversight organisation would just be clear that it is a delivery board that is delivering against a commission from the Scottish Government, so it has not been created as a separate organisation. The work that we are taking forward will need to be validated, so it is not a decision for SQA in terms of the form and function of the new delivery body. The delivery board and the expertise that has been alluded to will create proposals that will go to the Scottish Government and be reviewed, involving external stakeholders. Involvement of stakeholders at an early stage of this work is really important. Credibility of the work is really important. I do not underestimate the amount of work that is involved in this, but we have a real opportunity here, and I think that it is important that we grasp that. In practice, how many times has that oversight board met? How does it operate? How are those external stakeholders input into this process? The delivery board met for the first time in August with the confirmation of membership. It is an open discussion. We have the commission against which we are tracking performance and work. The analysis that is undertaken is really about our delivery against that commission for the Scottish Government. What the external members are bringing to the table is different perspectives on what they would want to see from the output of that work. Are we operating in a way that looks to the end destination what it is that we want to achieve and then working how we best get there, as opposed to simply tweaking existing practice and approach? That, in part, is at the nub. In Kenmure's report and response, there are general words around the ethos or better learner engagement or whatever. It is about how you articulate that and then how you deliver that. That is what we are working through at this point in time. The target operating model will establish that kind of mission, vision and so on for the new organisation from which we will flow some of the detailed organisational work that is required thereafter. That was the last question. We have time for keeping an eye on the clock. I thank you all for your time today and for the participation of the three members from the SQA. The public part of today's meeting is now at an end. We will now consider our final agenda item in private. Thank you very much.