The SQA’s attitude to bereaved children shows why we should rethink exams

At first glance it seems inhumane that about nine in ten Scottish pupils who have suffered a bereavement are unsuccessful in their appeals over their school exam results. Likewise, it seems surprising that 80 per cent of those who appeal based on legitimate illness also have their appeals rejected.

This is all thrown into relief by the fact that the above numbers only refer to students who attempted to sit exams in an adverse situation. If the same students opt not to sit exams at all there is an 80 per cent success rate. This all seems counterintuitive.

The basic evidence underpinning this entire question is pretty straightforward. Anyone – adult or child – who experiences a bereavement will experience significant cognitive changes. In the language of popular science, grief literally 'rewires the brain'. This need not be a permanent outcome, but if symptoms are not addressed or those in most distress do not get support, it can be.

There are a range of outcomes from this which are particularly important. Among the most relevant here is that a brain which is facing grief will struggle more with concentration and memory and this is exacerbated because sleep is often affected.

Of course, go and look at any basic guide to how to support a child during exams and it will make clear that stress and anxiety should be avoided and good sleep is essential. There is clear evidence our existing exam system is already placing children under undue stress and that it is creating levels of anxiety that are often unhealthy.

There is nothing that can be done to prevent external shocks like bereavement. These are part of life. But for a child these can be very difficult experiences because often they will be dealing with these issues for the first time, and also because their brains are still forming and so shocks like this are more likely to have permanent effects.

The response from the SQA (the exam quango) is a long way from reassuring. It delayed and delayed the release of this information for as long as it could right up to the legal deadline of an FoI request. This does not give the impression of 'servant of the people'.

It is easy to understand why. The SQA has such a bad reputation that it became a cross-party consensus that it should be scrapped altogether after a damning review by the OECD - and the Scottish Government promised to do this. But, as is so common in Quango Scotland, the SQA appears to have prevailed over democracy again.

Just as soon as the pressure to scrap the organisation seemed to have paid off, the Scottish Government published legislation which changed the name from the Scottish Qualification Agency to Qualification Scotland, retained all the same staff and procedures but changed the logo. The body which lost the confidence of the entire Scottish Parliament will live on virtually unchanged. Teachers were reported to be ‘dismayed’.

The reason that the SQA was the subject of a cross-party consensus is that it very often gives the appearance of being there first and foremost to protect itself from criticism and to act like an authority which is above scrutiny. From the blatant attempt to produce a pre-decided and arbitrary qualification outcome during lockdown to the patently dishonest way it reviewed what are widely believed to be serious failures in a history exam to the response to this story, the SQA's aggressive-defensive stance gives reason for concern.

Despite what reactionary media outlets would suggest, exams and their marking are not an exact science. This is not like monitoring weather or electricity consumption, this is a complex system filled with human decisions and priorities. The need to examine those decisions and priorities is fundamental to democracy. The SQA often does not appear to understand this.

But there is a more fundamental point; what is all this for? Common Weal supports a 'Curriculum for Wellbeing'. We believe that children's interests should come first in education, not employers, not universities and certainly not the SQA. Our entire exam system is narrowly focussed, out of date and creates entirely unnecessary levels of stress and anxiety among pupils.

More to the point, there is very little evidence that our exam system is actually improving the education of children. The more pressure has been placed on children to do well in exams, the lower Scotland's educational attainment appears to get. Subject exams are not the only way to recognise learning. In Finland there are no exams other than for those who want to sit a final exit exam – and they have some of the best educational outcomes in the world.

Scotland should be having a proper and intelligent debate about its exam system, what it is doing to children and why we cling to it. That debate does not appear to be one that will take place so long as the SQA exists – irrespective of what logo is on the front of the building.