Hansard

In the four weeks since this year's exam results were issued, serious problems—indeed, very serious problems—have emerged. There has been widespread and understandable concern and much media coverage. Many instant analyses and snap judgments have been made and much has been said about accountability.

May I once again offer my sincere apologies to all those who have been affected by what has happened. It was not of the students' making, nor was it of the teachers', schools' and colleges' making. It should not have happened.

Our first duties are to the young people—to look at the issues clearly and dispassionately on their behalf. I will begin, therefore, by stating what the Scottish Qualifications Authority has given me to understand is the position today. The last outstanding queries concerning the results of university applicants were resolved on 25 August. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service confirmed today that 2.6 per cent more Scottish candidates now have assured university places than at the same point last year—a total of 23,694.

The SQA has completed its checks and has confirmed final grades for all of this year's higher and certificate of sixth year studies candidates. It has also confirmed final grades in all but 85 standard grade cases and has promised to complete the last of those by Friday at the latest. Schools and colleges were asked to submit all urgent appeals by 31 August. Examination of those appeals has begun.

That is the position today. After all the understandable concern and coverage of the past few weeks, everyone has the right to know how the problems arose, how they have been addressed on behalf of this year's candidates and where we go next.

However, I want first to thank education professionals from schools, colleges and universities who—at very short notice and under great pressure—worked with the SQA to address the problems that we faced a few weeks ago. I am very grateful to every one of them.

This morning, the Education, Culture and Sport Committee decided to go ahead with an inquiry into this year's exam results. I welcome that and look forward to giving evidence, because I believe that it is very important that the full and complex truth of this year's events is evaluated impartially. The committee will consider all aspects in great detail, but this afternoon I will give an account of the picture as it emerged and the way in which we tackled it.

Members will be aware that the concept of higher still was decided upon by the previous Administration in 1994. In April 1997, after consultation, it set up the Scottish Qualifications Authority, which amalgamated the Scottish Vocational Education Council—SCOTVEC—and the Scottish Examinations Board. That created a new non-departmental public body—the old word was quango—which, as members will appreciate, appoints and controls its own staff, who are not civil servants.

When higher still was being introduced, teachers made repeated representations about the difficulties that they faced in making it work in the classroom. As a result, the previous Administration and the subsequent Labour Administration each allowed a year's delay to meet teachers' concerns. The Labour Government also provided considerable additional resources—some £40 million—to address the problem. The teachers and the schools delivered for their pupils and I wish to express my thanks to them all for their considerable efforts in doing so.

The difficulties that we have addressed and are still addressing lay elsewhere. In March, I was concerned by reports that I received from schools and colleges that told me of problems with electronic transfer of information to the SQA. At my request, a senior member of the Scottish Executive's information technology directorate met the SQA, reviewed the situation and made recommendations. Also at my request, my officials followed that up by meetings with the SQA. Again, we were offered reassurances that the matter was being resolved by the SQA. My officials continued to press the SQA. Repeated assurances were given in those meetings, in written statements and in SQA board and committee papers. Let me give members some quotations from the SQA. On 10 May, it told us in writing that

"All significant internal problems have been rectified".

The next day, in a paper to one of its own committee meetings, it said that

"overall there is every reason to believe that the diet will go smoothly."

In June it became clear that the SQA was having difficulty in recruiting sufficient exam markers in some subjects. It also became clear from our contact with schools and colleges that, despite the SQA's reassurances, the authority was substantially behind schedule in collecting internal assessment data from schools and colleges. At my request, officials pursued those matters with the SQA. I ensured that I was kept fully informed.

After that, meetings between my officials and SQA staff took place on 27 June, 7 July, 14 July, 21 July, 28 July, 2 August, 4 August and 9 August—a total of eight meetings. Those were backed up by many other contacts during which our concerns were expressed repeatedly and the SQA was questioned time and again on its contingency plans. All that was in addition to continued daily contact.

It was in that context that I met the chairman and the chief executive of the SQA on 25 July. At that meeting I offered increased resources to meet any difficulties, but those were declined. The option to delay issuing results by one week was discussed. A few days later, the SQA decided not to pursue that option. At that meeting, I also received personal assurances that although some data were still missing, the matter was being addressed, that the numbers that were involved were declining rapidly and that the SQA hoped to issue a covering letter with the certificate of any candidate who had incomplete results.

On 9 August—only one day before candidates expected to open their envelopes—the SQA reassured my officials confidently that all the certificates would be issued on time and that only 1 per cent of candidates—around 1,500—would receive incomplete results. My officials were also reassured that those results were now, however, to be issued without any letter of explanation and that the missing data would be obtained quickly.

Members will not be surprised to hear that, given all the reassurances that I received during the previous weeks and months, I considered it totally unacceptable that 1,500 candidates would receive incomplete results. Because of that and because—much more worryingly—the SQA could not even tell me who those 1,500 candidates were, that day I ordered a full independent inquiry. I did that against the initial inclination of the SQA, which wanted to hold its own inquiry and pointed out—as it had done often—that it was an independent organisation.

The very next day—10 August, the day that the results came out—evidence emerged that potentially many more than 1,500 candidates had received incomplete results. What was even worse—especially in the light of the SQA's recent repeated assurances—was that I learned to my dismay that significant numbers of certificates had not been posted at all.

On 12 August, the chief executive of the SQA resigned. On Sunday 13 August, I met the chairman and senior staff from the SQA. By that time, events had rendered the stated position of the SQA untenable. The chairman recognised that; he also recognised that to move forward the SQA had to accept guidance. Therefore, at that meeting my officials and I developed with the SQA an operational plan to put right what had gone wrong. On the same day the SQA representatives and I met the secretary of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals to discuss how best to protect the interests of young people who were applying to university. COSHEP gave an undertaking that no young person would be disadvantaged by what had happened. That followed from my statement of 11 August that

"No-one will miss out on a university place because of these problems."

We backed that up with further action to ensure that universities and colleges were given the necessary flexibility. I reiterate that, as of today, 2.6 per cent more students have been accepted for university education than had been accepted at the same time last year.

On 14 August the SQA board appointed Bill Morton as interim chief executive. Over the next few days, to address concerns about computer processing of results, the SQA carried out extensive tests on its computer systems. Those did not identify any fundamental system defects.

We expected problems across the various exam levels but—at my insistence—candidates who were seeking places at university were our first priority. The SQA therefore sought first to identify every higher or sixth year studies candidate who had assessment information missing, then to complete the information and confirm all results as quickly as possible. Within that group, university applicants had the highest priority. Similar processes were mapped out in relation to intermediate and standard grade candidates.

The validation process showed that 5,700—4 per cent—of results at higher and certificate of sixth year studies grade were incomplete. For example, in the well-publicised case of the Russian higher class, which included some native Russian speakers, the results of the class's oral assessments had not been entered, so no awards had been made. Similarly, almost 5,000—less than 1 per cent—of standard grade results were also incomplete and 4,500 intermediate courses were similarly affected. Those validation checks, followed by the confirmation of final results, represent the first stage of the SQA's response to the problems that it had not previously identified, but which were now obvious to all.

For those candidates who still have concerns, the appeals process is under way. The process of appeals is well established: schools and colleges submit evidence of candidates' coursework or prelim performance and if necessary their scripts are reviewed.

Last year there were 47,000 individual subject appeals and about 40 per cent were successful. Obviously this year appeal numbers will be higher. We have arranged—via the SQA and directors of education—to put in place detailed plans that are phased to meet candidates' most urgent needs first.

We are co-operating with directors of education to ensure that teachers will be available to serve as examiners without undue disruption to schools. To maintain confidence in the appeals process and its standards, I have arranged that the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland will provide independent monitoring. That association has played a valuable and constructive role in working with the Executive to ensure that plans for an expanded appeals system are sound.

In building on that, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the SQA have accepted my proposal that four senior directors of education should monitor all aspects of delivery of the appeals system. They will make sure that the system matches the plans and is carried out in a way that commands public and professional confidence. The directors will have full access to the process, including the right to make spot checks.

I have also made special arrangements for representatives of teachers to be kept involved and informed. Schools and colleges—and, more particularly, candidates—can have confidence that the process for dealing with increased numbers of appeals will be robust.

Schools and colleges submitted evidence for urgent appeals—mainly on behalf of university and college entrance candidates—by the deadline, which was yesterday. Those 6,250 appeals will be handled first and, I am assured by the SQA, completed by 20 September. Overall, the estimated 120,000 appeals will be dealt with as quickly as possible, over a period of weeks.

That, with the outcomes to which I referred earlier, is what we have done on behalf of this year's candidates. Now we must ensure that schools, colleges, candidates and candidates' families never face such problems again. The new chief executive of the SQA has already begun a full internal operational review and I have agreed to his request for one of my officials to serve on that review, which will be completed by the end of the month.

However, we all need much more reassurance than that internal exercise—however illuminating—might provide. That is why I ordered a full independent inquiry, even before candidates had received their results. That inquiry—carried out by experts on information handling, computing and management—has been out to tender. I can now tell Parliament that Deloitte Touche was appointed yesterday to conduct it. Deloitte Touche will report by 31 October and its findings will, of course, be made public.

The remit of the inquiry covers all aspects of the production of this year's results. It will consider links with schools and colleges and every aspect of data handling in the SQA. The inquiry will, of course, pay particular attention to the quality control mechanism for marking. Head teachers, college principals, directors of education and teachers who are involved in marking will be involved, as will SQA staff. We will find out exactly what went wrong.

Concerns have been expressed about marking standards and the way in which checks on those were carried out. We must not confuse marking standards with the administration of marking. The SQA acknowledges that there were flaws in marking administration. Eight cases of probationer teachers being used have been identified out of more than 7,000 markers. That should not have happened, but it has not compromised marking standards. The marking of those teachers was assessed as part of normal quality assurance procedures. Six were rated in the highest category of marker—grade A—and the other two were rated in the second highest category. Where doubts remain about individual results, the appeals system—which is strengthened this year for the extra challenge that it faces—will provide further reassurance.

Understandably, the status of the SQA has come into question. Henry McLeish and I have therefore brought forward the policy and financial management review of the SQA, which in the ordinary course of events would not have taken place until 2002. That review will address fundamental questions about the way in which the organisation is constituted and its relationship with the education department and ministers. All options will be considered, but final decisions will have to rest with Parliament.

All results for this year's higher and sixth year studies candidates are now complete. We have dealt with the problems of university entrance qualifications and we know that UCAS acceptances are already greater than they were last year. Standard grade results are all but complete and a strengthened and prioritised appeals process has begun.

The problems should, of course, never have arisen. I have described in some detail my sustained but frustrated efforts in dealing with the SQA since March. Time and again my officials and I raised specific concerns. Time and again we were offered reassurances that were worthless at the end of the day. Even in the period immediately preceding 10 August and the emergence of the full extent of the SQA's failure, a reliable response to my repeated calls for detailed information was not forthcoming. Subsequent revelations are a matter for grave concern.

Again I have apologised—in detail and in public—to the young people and their parents whose summer has been blighted by the anxiety and uncertainty that was caused by the SQA's handling of their exams and their results. I have explained to members what steps I took as the problems began to emerge and what action I am taking in their wake. I hope that I have made clear to members and to all concerned my determination that such things will never happen again.