SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about events at their child (A)'s school, in relation to suspected candidate malpractice and subsequent investigations into the school’s handling of the matters. C queried whether the council followed the correct process when C raised their concerns, as C was of the view the council should have followed the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA)’s Centre Malpractice Procedure, rather than the complaint procedure. C also raised concern that the investigating officer had shown bias in the process, that the child friendly complaint process had not been followed, and that the Stage 2 complaint response downplayed or omitted serious breaches, contained inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and directly contradicted the SQA’s findings. We found that while it was reasonable for the council to use the complaint handling process as opposed to the SQA’s centre malpractice process, they appeared to be uncertain about the correct procedures. We also found that the council failed to address legitimate concerns about bias in the appointment of the investigating officer or respond to these issues. We found that the council failed to follow child friendly complaint handling procedures, as they did not seek consent and views from the young person at the appropriate stage, and did not clearly consider and take into account the young person’s views when making their decision. Finally, we found that there were incompatibilities in outcome of the council’s investigation. We upheld the complaint. The council had begun to take action to address these failings including developing a Malpractice Policy, building steps into their processes to ensure the views of young people are included in investigations, and committing to refresher complaint handling training, so we asked for evidence of these actions.

Ms C complained about the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA)'s marking of a handwritten exam script for her daughter (Miss A). Miss A's script was considered to be illegible when it was initially marked and this resulted in her not receiving the mark she had hoped for in that subject. Miss A had two places at universities that were conditional upon her receiving a higher award than she achieved in that subject. Miss A applied for a place at a university elsewhere and accepted that place the day after receiving her exam results. Miss A's school later submitted a marking review request for her, and she was awarded a higher grade. However, this was too late for her to take up one of the conditional university places she had previously been offered. Ms C complained that pre-certification quality assurance checks had not established an issue with Miss A's script and that the SQA had unreasonably failed to provide information at the time the results were issued to advise that a priority marking review could secure a conditional university place. Ms C was also concerned that the SQA had not handled her complaint reasonably. After considering the available evidence, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint about quality assurance checking. We found that the initial marker followed the proper process when they considered that the script was illegible and escalated the matter appropriately. The script was then reviewed by a more senior assessor, who agreed that it was illegible. Although a higher award was given following the marking review request, we found that this was as a result of a subject specialist being asked to decipher the handwriting, and so we did not consider that the initial marker and the senior assessor had acted unreasonably. We also did not uphold Ms C's complaint regarding the information available on priority marking reviews. We found evidence that this information on priority marking reviews was available from a number of different sources and

Mr C complained that the Scottish Qualification Authority (SQA)'s handling of his complaint was unreasonable, as he felt there was a lack of transparency in their response to him. Mr C’s son’s school were meant to put in place reasonable adjustments for Mr C's son to complete an exam, but failed to do so. The school submitted an exceptional circumstances consideration request to the SQA because of the exam circumstances their failure had created. The SQA considered the request and determined that Mr C’s son would not have passed the exam. Mr C complained to the SQA that they had given contradictory information to the school about the request process, that the SQA had not followed their own procedures in considering the request, and that they did not use appropriate academic evidence to assess his son's ability. We found that the school were bound by the SQA’s procedures on submitting a request, and the procedures were clear that it was the school’s responsibility to submit to the SQA all available alternative academic evidence for consideration. The school failed to do this and submitted only selected evidence. The SQA could only assess Mr C's son’s ability based on the evidence provided by the school. We did not see any evidence that the SQA failed to follow their procedures. It would be unreasonable to hold the SQA responsible for the school’s failings, including the school’s failure to support Mr C’s son. We concluded that, although the SQA’s response to Mr C’s complaint could have provided some additional information, such as the greater level of detail they provided to us in responding to our enquiry, the response was an accurate reflection of their responsibilities as set out in their policies. Whilst we appreciated the impact that the school’s repeated failings had on Mr C’s son, and that Mr C was unhappy that the SQA were unable to remedy the situation created by the school, we did not find that the SQA’s handling of Mr C’s complaint was unreasonable.

Mr C complained that the college unreasonably failed to deliver his course in line with the course criteria and that they failed to respond to his subsequent complaint in accordance with their responsibilities. We were satisfied that the college acted in line with the Scottish Qualifications Authority criteria for Mr C's course, and we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. However, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the way the college responded to his subsequent complaint as we found that the college did not communicate reasonably with Mr C in response to his requests for information.

Mrs C complained that the MySQA service provided to her daughter (Ms A) was unreasonable. This was because, in Mrs C's opinion, SQA should have emailed Ms A's amended results directly to her via the MySQA service, and updated Ms A's MySQA page on the date the amended results were issued. We found that information published by SQA stated that, at the time of the main national release of results in early August, they would be issued directly to candidates. However, individual results amended after a priority marking review would be issued to schools in late August. The SQA information did not say that amended results would be issued directly to candidates, or that MySQA pages would be updated on the date the amended results were issued. It appeared Mrs C's complaint was based on her assumptions and preferences about what should happen, which were contrary to SQA's published information. It would not be reasonable to hold SQA responsible for Mrs C's assumptions, or reasonable to expect SQA to state what their service would not do, when they stated what their service would do. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201605531 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that administrative errors when marking his Advanced Higher exam papers had resulted in him narrowly missing out on achieving an A grade. The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) accepted that the wrong information was placed on their website in relation to the marking instructions for a particular question. However, we did not find evidence that Mr C's exam script had been assessed with these incorrect marking instructions or that he had been disadvantaged by this error. In relation to the marking of another question, it appeared that the original mark given had been amended to a lower mark. By law we cannot investigate matters of academic judgement and therefore we could not investigate why the mark was given, as it related to the academic judgement of the marker concerned. However, we were satisfied that the final mark given for this question was as stated on the exam paper. Mr C also questioned why the same marker had both marked and reviewed his exam papers. We considered that the SQA in a communication with Mr C had given him an expectation that his scripts would be reviewed by a different individual. However, we also considered it was a matter for the SQA to decide how they operated the marking and review of examinations. We did not find evidence that the SQA's assessment processes were not followed in Mr C's case or that it was unreasonable for the same marker to have marked and reviewed Mr C's exam papers. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints about these matters. Mr C also complained that the SQA failed to follow their complaints handling procedures and, instead, treated his complaint correspondence as enquiries and feedback. The SQA accepted they failed to treat Mr C's concerns as a complaint and apply their complaints procedure including a referral to this office. We considered the SQA's complaints handing was poor and upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mrs C was a student at the college. She complained about the behaviour of a member of teaching staff towards her. She also said that the staff member failed to provide agreed reasonable adjustments, that they scheduled some assessments in an inappropriate location and destroyed some of her assessment work. Mrs C also complained that the college's handling of her complaint was inadequate. We found that there was no independent evidence to support Mrs C's account of the staff member's behaviour; although this did not mean we did not believe her. However, given the lack of evidence, we could not reach a finding on this and, therefore, we could not uphold this aspect of her complaint. There was evidence to show that the staff member failed to provide agreed reasonable adjustments and scheduled some assessments in an inappropriate location, and we upheld these complaints. We did not find that the staff member destroyed some of Mrs C's assessment work; rather, the college only retained Mrs C's work for as long as was required by the Scottish Qualifications Authority. In addition, we were satisfied that the college's handling of Mrs C's complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold these aspects of Mrs C's complaint. As the staff member had left the college, we did not make recommendations about their actions, as this would have no effect. The college have reminded staff of what constitutes inappropriate practice and to follow college procedure at all times. We were satisfied that the college have taken responsibility for what happened, and that their actions provide an assurance that this should not happen to another student. Related reading View Decision Report 201508268 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Miss A) that the Scottish Qualifications Authority had acted unreasonably by failing to follow their marking review procedure in relation to elements of Miss A's Higher Drama exam. Miss A failed her Higher Drama exam. Her school asked the SQA to review her results. The SQA reviewed her written assessment, but Mr C was unhappy that they did not review the performance aspect of the examination too. Following our investigation, we established that the marking of the question paper of Miss A's Higher Drama exam had been reviewed within the post-results service offered by the SQA, however, the performance elements had only been given a clerical check (the marks were not reviewed). We were satisfied that the SQA procedure was that centres could opt to record the performing exams. This offers pupils the opportunity to enter into the full marking review process in relation to a review of the performance element. However, recording was not mandatory and centres who chose not to record the performing exam could still request a review of the question paper. Miss A's school had not opted to record the performance and, therefore, they were unable to enter into the full marking review process in relation to the performance elements of her assessment. We were satisfied that the SQA had made centres (including schools) aware of this before the exam. In light of this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201505278 as a PDF (11.26 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's daughter appealed to the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) about her results in two subjects. Her appeals were not upheld. Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter to the SQA about the procedures they had followed and that they had not examined apparent administrative errors in the recording of her marks. The SQA investigated and responded to additional points of clarification that Mr C asked for, but he did not think their responses were clear or addressed his concerns. He also asked about the papers for one of her subjects which appeared to be missing. The SQA admitted they were unable to trace the documents and outlined the steps they would take to ensure there would be no recurrence. From our investigation, we were satisfied that the SQA provided reasonable responses to Mr C's representations. The responses included explaining their quality assurance processes, confirming that the original marking of the examinations had been to the national standard, confirming that following the appeal they were satisfied the marks awarded were correct and that there had been no mistakes in the marking of the examinations. They had also responded to Mr C's concerns about the loss of documents and had explained the action taken to improve their processes. Related reading View Decision Report 201404550 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C sat an exam that was provided by an awarding body regulated by SQA Accreditation (part of the Scottish Qualifications Authority that regulates awarding bodies and accredits their qualifications). There was a problem with the exam and because of this all the marks, including Mr C's, were voided. Mr C complained to SQA Accreditation about how the awarding body dealt with his complaint. As Mr C was not happy with SQA Accreditation's response, he complained to us. We found that it was appropriate for SQA Accreditation to have considered the awarding body's handling of the matter by referring to the most recent SQA Accreditation Regulatory Principles. However, we found that SQA Accreditation's complaints procedure did not comply with the model complaints handling procedure (CHP) that organisations under our jurisdiction must follow. We also found that SQA Accreditation did not respond to each agreed point of Mr C's complaint separately. It would have been good practice to explain to Mr C what SQA Accreditation could or could not look at, answer each of the specific points of complaint that were agreed with him, and set out the key evidence on which their conclusions were based. In addition, there were insufficient records of phone calls made during SQA Accreditation's handling of Mr C's complaint, and they did not advise Mr C clearly about how to take his complaint further. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the support provided by the college for his disability. Mr C said the college did not set up a personal learning support plan in a timely way, and his lecturers were not told that he had a support plan. Mr C also said the college failed to give him information about the assessment of some of his courses, failed to give him feedback in time, and did not explain the process or deadlines when they gave him the opportunity to study over the summer and take 'assessment on demand' for some courses. Mr C said he was given only one day's warning for one exam, and was not given a resit opportunity for other courses. Mr C also complained that the assessment for one of his courses was reviewed by an independent assessor without his permission, and that the college failed to respond to his questions and give him information he requested on several occasions. The college investigated Mr C's complaints, but did not uphold them, and Mr C complained to us about the college's lack of support and about their investigation of his complaint. While we were investigating Mr C's complaints, we found that Mr C had also complained to the Scottish Qualifications Authority about the same issues, and they were also investigating these. Given that Mr C already had access to an avenue of appeal which could give him the outcome he wished (reconsideration of his grades), we decided not to investigate Mr C's complaint about the support provided by the college. We asked Mr C if he wanted us to continue investigating his complaint about the college's handling of his complaint to them, but he did not respond, and we closed our investigation. Related reading View Decision Report 201403349 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that for the four years her son (Mr A) had been a pupil at a school within the council area, no assessment was made of what extra support he required, and teachers did not provide supportive evidence. This was despite her requests that her son was assessed to determine what extra support needs he had. She said that after Mr A left the school, he began to attend a local further education college where he was given a full psychological assessment. The associated report confirmed that Mr A had signs of dyslexia. Mrs C believed that as a consequence of the school's actions, Mr A did not perform as well as he could have in his exams. She said that his self confidence had been detrimentally affected. Our investigation found that throughout Mr A's school career, whenever Mrs C had asked for his support to be considered, her request was reviewed in terms of the council's policy and, where necessary, appropriate support was provided. Mr A was given the means by which he could perform to his best ability and he performed as had been predicted (and on occasion better) in an independent assessment all pupils had been given. Furthermore, although Mrs C requested special adjustments for Mr A during his exams, his teachers' views had been obtained and assessed and the Scottish Qualifications Authority consulted and it was determined, on this basis, that he did not require extra support. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404558 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Following an unsuccessful appeal into Mr C's son's Higher Grade result, the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) wrote to his school with the reasons for the decision, which the school then shared with Mr C. The SQA later also wrote to Mr C explaining why the appeal could not be granted. A further letter to the school, however, then appeared to contradict what had previously been explained. Mr C was concerned about the stated grounds on which the appeal was refused and questioned the reasons provided and the truthfulness of their statement that, in line with national standards, bullet point answers would receive zero marks. Our investigation found that, while it was clear that the instructions said that bullet point answers should be discouraged, there was no specific reference to using bullet points and the award of 'zero marks' in SQA materials. We saw no evidence to suggest a deliberate intention to mislead, and noted that the SQA had undertaken a thorough investigation into the matter, apologised for the error, taken action to address this and provided clear explanations in their later correspondence with Mr C. However, we upheld the complaint, noting that they had accepted that their initial explanations were insufficient and did appear to contradict what was later said to the school. This only compounded Mr C's confusion and frustrations about the decision on the appeal and could have been avoided if the SQA had ensured their correspondence was clearer and more precise in the first place.

Mr C, a former teacher, complained that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) did not respond reasonably to complaints that he and his school submitted about examinations. We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we found that the SQA's initial responses did not adequately address the complaints raised, and there was a significant delay in providing an appropriate response to the points Mr C had raised. In addition, the SQA should have informed the school that there would be a delay in responding to one of their letters because the matters raised were to be discussed at a meeting. However, before Mr C complained to us, the SQA had reminded relevant staff that they should ensure that they provided appropriate information in response to all incoming enquiries and complaints. They had also reminded staff of the importance of adhering to the timescales set out in their customer complaints process. We, therefore, only made one recommendation.

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter that there had been an error in how an examination had been marked. Despite consistently telling the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) that a mistake had been made, Mrs C was unhappy that her representations were treated as an appeal. She complained that the SQA failed to acknowledge that an administrative error in dealing with her daughter's results led to an incorrect result being recorded for her and that the SQA were rude and unhelpful in dealing with her complaint. She also said that they failed to properly investigate the circumstances. When we investigated, we found that although the SQA made a full clerical check of the circumstances they did not explore the possibility that a error could have been made when originally transcribing Mrs C's daughter's mark. In the circumstances, we could not determine whether or not an error had actually been made. We could not, therefore, uphold this part of the complaint. However, it was clear that the SQA had not made appropriate and full enquiries about the matter. We upheld Mrs C's complaints about this and made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Mr C's daughter was taking music lessons at school. When she started, the lessons were free but, unknown to Mr C, the council had already decided that they would begin to charge for them at the start of the next school year. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to tell him that in future there would be a charge, which he could not afford, and said that he was out of pocket as he had bought his daughter an instrument and sheet music. He said that he would not have done that if he had known that the council had already decided to start charging. He also complained that the council failed to consider the issue of inclusive education in their impact assessment on a proposed efficiency savings policy (which included the introduction of these charges). Our investigation found that the council did not tell parents about the charges until finalising the administrative and income collection processes for them, some four months after taking the decision. We upheld Mr C's complaint as we found it unreasonable that the council did not tell parents who applied for free music tuition in the preceding months that a charge would apply from the start of the new school year. We considered whether we should recommend that they recompense Mr C for the cost of the instrument and music, but decided that they should not, as other alternatives were available, and the decision to buy the items was clearly his choice. On inclusive education, we considered that the council's impact assessment took account of equalities legislation and community relations. The council explained that there is normally a charge for music tuition for pupils who are not studying for Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) music qualifications. Mr C's daughter was not studying for such a qualification. Although, therefore, Mr C felt that his daughter was excluded on ability to pay, there was in fact no requirement for the council to provide free tuition outwith the SQA qualification. Related reading

Mr C's son failed the essay component of his Higher history exam as the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) deemed the title of his essay invalid. Mr C was unhappy as the school had advised his son on the title, and the school remained of the view that it was valid. Because of the difference of opinion between the SQA and the school, Mr C complained that the SQA failed to have adequate processes in place for communicating their guidelines to schools. In responding to our enquiries, the SQA confirmed that they have processes in place for communicating their guidance. This includes detailed information on their website, annual update letters to schools and the availability of bespoke training services. In response to Mr C's concerns that there was no real-time validation process in place for essay titles, the SQA said that, due to the high number of candidates presenting to them, this was neither practical nor appropriate. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201103561 as a PDF (16.72 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's daughter was a candidate for the SQA Higher physics examination in May 2010. Previously, she obtained a B grade pass in the preliminary school Higher physics examination earlier that year and had targeted a B grade pass in the final Higher examination. Mr C’s daughter attained a C grade pass in the final Higher examination in May. The school submitted an appeal on behalf of Mr C’s daughter and another student in August 2010. Both appeals were dismissed and both students' results stood. In returning the appeals, the SQA provided two reasons for their decision, both relating to the validity of the school’s preliminary examination. Mr C submitted subsequent complaints against the SQA and the council (as education authority). He complained that the SQA had failed to provide a reasonable explanation of why they considered the school's preliminary examination was not sufficiently robust to support a successful appeal. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint. The SQA had provided feedback to the school on why they had dismissed the appeals. Related reading View Decision Report 201102138 as a PDF (14.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained that her son's school did not ensure that support arrangements were in place for him during his Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) exams. The school, Mrs C and her son contacted the SQA about this. The SQA reviewed his examination papers and the alternative evidence provided by the school through their appeals process but decided not to increase the pupil’s grades. Mrs C complained that the SQA did not have procedures in place to allow them to compensate for the school's error. In line with their appeals process, the SQA was unable to upgrade marks without evidence of attainment at the higher level. The SQA had looked at Mrs C's son's examination papers and evidence submitted by the school. They found that there was not evidence of attainment at a higher level than Mrs C's son achieved in his Higher examinations, and so they were unable to upgrade his marks. A process which would deal with the circumstances if this case would be a process which would involve the SQA having to make a judgement on potential performance, without evidence of attainment at that level. It is important that the SQA are able to ensure the integrity of their awards and we understood that, if the SQA were to have a process which would allow them to upgrade awards based on potential performance, this would be subjective and possibly open to manipulation. While we appreciated Mrs C and her son's frustration at the situation, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100398 as a PDF (14.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained on behalf of her daughter Miss A about one of Miss A's Highers, for which the Scottish Qualifications Authority gave her no award. Mrs C was unhappy with the way in which the council and Miss A's secondary school handled her complaint. She said the council did not investigate her concerns about Miss A's case at the final stage of their complaints procedure, instead producing a rehash of their previous response. Some of Miss A's work had been damaged or was missing and Mrs C also said that the school and the council shielded a teacher, who she said was not held accountable for Miss A's lost and damaged work and subsequent poor marks. The council confirmed that since Mrs C's complaint, the school had taken steps to improve security for candidates' work. Our investigation found no evidence that the teacher had been shielded, and in fact the school had taken action to deal with the teacher's failings. Neither did we find evidence that the council had not investigated or responded properly to Mrs C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201003272 as a PDF (13.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018