The Priestley review of this summer’s Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) results fiasco has been published. Here are 17 of its most important and eye-catching findings:

1. The cancellation of the 2020 exams created a ‘monumental task’ 

There was “general acceptance” among most respondents to the review that the SQA and Scottish government were “faced with an impossible situation”. Respondents “generally recognised the professionalism, hard work and dedication brought to the task by SQA”.

2. Many respondents disagreed with the scrapping of coursework

Respondents generally saw no feasible alternative to cancelling the exams, but there was “more disagreement with the decision not to continue with marking and submission of coursework”. The Priestley review, however, says it was “a pragmatic decision made for a combination of good reasons”.

3. A lot of problems could have been avoided

Many problems “could have been mitigated, had different decisions been made”, although the review authors stress that it is “not always clear that different forms of action advocated would have made a huge difference”.

Priestley review: SQA results fiasco ‘could have been partially avoided’

Also this week: National 5 exams cancelled amid coronavirus fears

Background: ‘Sense of injustice on a whole other level’

Related: SQA says ‘We did what we were told on results moderation’

4. Varied approaches to estimating grades affected the reliability of assessment

Teachers’ estimates were “clearly undertaken with integrity” in most schools and colleges, but were “subject to variation (in the types of evidence available, the processes followed for internal moderation and the support given by local authorities), which has impacted on reliability of assessment”.

5. Students’ mental health has suffered

The cancellation of exams prompted a “visceral reaction”, which saw “students crying and screaming when the announcement was made”; the “ongoing stress” since the 2020 exams were scrapped “cannot be underestimated”.

Young people reported that school performance plays a big part in their sense of self-worth: “In short, grades matter in their lives,” the report says. The pandemic has had a big impact on mental health, having created “a period of prolonged anxiety, compounded by uncertainty relating to [SQA] arrangements for 2021”.

6. There was a failure at the highest level to understand equity issues

There was “a lack of appreciation, by key bodies throughout the process, that the issue of perceived fairness to individuals might become a toxic political issue if not handled with sensitivity and forethought”.

Many young people felt that extenuating circumstances were not factored into grade estimates, such as illness, bereavement and poor access to internet and IT; some had to write essays on their phones and students “were aware that some private schools continued online teaching throughout lockdown, with fewer issues around technology”.

Despite the “equity implications of an over-reliance on a statistical approach [being] raised repeatedly from April [they] seem to have been under-emphasised by both the government and SQA until late in the process”.

The appeals system put in place “fails to deliver actual fairness for individuals”, but emails between the SQA and the Scottish government suggest that “explosive implications for public opinion” around such matters were not appreciated by either until near the 4 August publication of results: “Even at this late stage, the focus seemed to rest on presenting a positive picture (the attainment gap had closed in general terms) rather than seeking a fuller understanding of the nuances in the data.”

7. Students with learning difficulties may have suffered more than others

Teachers and parents told researchers that “some protected groups were disadvantaged more than others - for example, children with learning difficulties - and yet the full extent of this was unknown at the time due to a lack of analysis by SQA and the government”. More research is deemed necessary.

8. Trust in the SQA has fallen

One sentence, in particular, is damning: “Many respondents see SQA as lacking in transparency, and resistant to working with stakeholders in a genuinely collaborative manner.”

As is this: “Some respondents reported a perception of SQA as remote from, and lacking in trust in, teachers. This feeling has been reinforced by an apparent reluctance to share the technical details of the moderation model and its effects on estimates, despite multiple calls for this to be done.”

There was “a general perception by teachers that SQA communication throughout the process was not always clear or comprehensive”, and complaints “about a tendency to send out important updates on a Friday evening”. Young people, meanwhile, “experienced SQA and school communications as ambiguous, unclear and inconsistent”.

The review authors say that “better communication with young people and their families from the start, including clearer communication about the implications of a statistical moderation system and the use of the appeals system to mitigate these, may have lessened the strong reaction to the published grades in August”.

9. SQA’s regrets are qualified

The review authors note that “SQA has stated to us that there is no regret in respect of the moderation approach used this year (in terms of its technical application), but that the regret lies in the fact that the [post-certification review] process was not allowed to run its course, as this component was designed to deal with the sorts of problematic results that generated such an intense political and media focus after results day on 4 August”.

The SQA told the review that the case for the controversial moderation process, which was eventually replaced by a system of teacher estimates, was “clear and unequivocal”.

But the SQA “accepts that the statistical approach to moderation used in 2020 would not be acceptable to the public in future, and there should be more emphasis on a qualitative element to moderation, with a more active role for schools”.

The review adds that the SQA has indicated “some agreement that messaging is important, and that better communication...might have obviated a great deal of the furore that erupted after results day”.

But the SQA “told us that the decision not to share more details about the implications of the [moderation] model was based on a perceived need to avoid undue stress for students, parents/carers and teachers”.

10. Many students felt their grades did not reflect their contribution to their school

Many were “frustrated that their wider achievement and contribution to the school was not recognised in their awarded grades”, and “felt particularly aggrieved and betrayed by their school, when they had contributed to wider school life (eg, charity work, sports teams, prefect duties)”.

11. Some argue that anomalous SQA results could have been identified easily

One education director said that an analysis of results in their local authority “took only one hour and 40 minutes, with the implication that a national analysis of results, pre-award, would have been a straightforward exercise that would quickly have identified anomalous results”.

12. Data showing a narrowing attainment gap can be a red herring

The review report states “the narrowing of the attainment gap between the students from the least and the most disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds in 2020 has been praised, yet this feels like overfocusing on a wrong metric”, since it “hides the fact that high-attaining students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and improving schools in disadvantaged areas were downgraded more by the moderation procedure”.

While “mediocre students in high-performing schools may be unduly rewarded with higher than their estimated grades”, that was “far less discussed in the media”.

13. The lower your grade, the more likely you were to be downgraded

Local authority data analysis revealed an “avalanche effect”: the smallest number of entries moved from A to B, then larger numbers from B to C, and still more from C to D.

14. The appeals system put in place appears to leave a big burden on schools

Headteachers and local authorities say the revised appeals system, - introduced following education secretary John Swinney’s decision to honour teachers’ estimates - has “removed recourse to students to pursue appeals where estimates were inaccurate, and placed large pressures on schools”.

Many say that where schools accept the right to appeal on the grounds of bias/discrimination in the original decision, this places schools at possible risk of litigation. This “may create conditions where appeals are denied because they are not in the school’s interest to pursue them”, and there is “significant evidence that this situation is severely damaging relations between schools and parents”.

The review states: “The decision to limit grounds for appeal seems to us to be both unnecessary and counter-productive.”

15. There is a groundswell of support for fundamental change to the exams system

“There is widespread support across all of the stakeholder groups, with whom we engaged during the review, for a fundamental rethink of the long-term approach to awarding qualifications.”

16. The qualifications system relies too much on paper

The review calls for “digital materials and systems for producing, assessing and moderating assessment evidence, to ensure that operational processes for gathering candidate evidence for appeals is less reliant on paper-based systems”. Young people, as well as Colleges Scotland and the University of Glasgow Educational Assessment Network, say digitisation of coursework and assessment materials “would mitigate the problems caused by hard copies being inaccessible for estimation in 2020”.

17. SQA processes were fundamentally ill-equipped to deal with Covid

A “clear message” is that “because Covid-19 is an unprecedented threat, normal processes are inadequate to deal with [it]”.

The review states: “We have seen evidence that normal protocols and ways of working, including a perceived tendency for SQA to eschew external involvement in its technical processes, have actively hindered actions which might have mitigated the problems experienced this year.”