Overview
The complainant (Mr C)'s son (Mr A) was a pupil at a school in the Highland Council (the Council)'s area. Mr A was unable to sit his Higher Physics examination due to a family bereavement. Assurances were given by his school (the School) that he would be awarded a grade based on his preliminary examination results. However, the evidence provided by the School in support of Mr A's performance did not comply with the requirements of the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) and Mr A was awarded a lower grade. Mr C complained that the School did not use a prelim paper of the required standard and that they did not provide adequate evidence to the SQA in support of the subsequent appeal of Mr A's Higher Physics Result. Mr C also complained about the Council's handling of enquiries and complaints from him and his wife (Mrs C).
- (a) the School did not use a paper of the required standard in conducting a prelim examination for Higher Physics in early 2010 (upheld);
- (b) the School's submission of evidence of Mr A's performance in Higher Physics to the SQA in 2010 was not reasonable (upheld); and
- (c) the Council did not respond reasonably to Mr and Mrs C's enquiries and complaints (upheld).
|
The Ombudsman recommends that the Council:
|
|
|
(i)
|
ensure that the School develops a procedure for checking all prelim examination papers for compliance with SQA standards;
|
|
(ii)
|
work with the SQA to increase their understanding of the SQA's standards and how SQA staff assess the suitability of prelim papers;
|
|
(iii)
|
conduct a review of the types of evidence that will be accepted by the SQA in support of appeals and absentee assessments;
|
|
(iv)
|
ensure that the SQA's comments on the marking of Mr A's prelim examination have been fed back to the Principal Teacher concerned; and
|
|
(v)
|
issue a formal written apology to Mr A for the failings highlighted in this report.
|