Pupils call for review of 'confusing, ambiguous' Higher maths paper
Pupils have raised complaints about this year’s Higher maths paper and are calling for a review of the test
Pupils have called for a “transparent” review of this year’s Higher maths exam, calling it “confusing, ambiguous, and inconsistent with past papers”.
More than 11,000 people have now signed a petition about the test, which was set by the new exams body Qualifications Scotland (QS).
It is the first year that QS has set exams and the quango said all papers were checked to be “fair and suitable”.
The petition states: “This is not a complaint that the paper was too hard.
READ MORE:Malcolm Offord hires veteran ex-Labour MP as advisor as Reform looks to re-brand in Scotland
“Students expect to be challenged.
“The problem is that the 2026 Higher Maths Paper 1 used language and phrasing that was confusing, ambiguous, and inconsistent with every past paper students had revised from.
“Questions were not simply difficult - they were worded in ways that made it genuinely unclear what was being asked.”
The petition, which is anonymous, goes on to say Higher maths papers under the former exams body Scottish Qualifications Authority had a recognisable style.
These included “clear command words, standard notation, and questions that test understanding rather than the ability to decode unusual phrasing”.
“The 2026 Paper 1 departed from this in ways that penalised well-prepared students simply because the wording did not match the conventions they had been taught to expect,” the petition adds.
The SQA was replaced following criticism from teachers and politicians for how it handled exam grading during the Covid-19 pandemic.
An S5 pupil in Aberdeen who hopes to study medicine, told the BBC she had been “really upset” with the paper.
She said she felt "well prepared" ahead of the exam - having done four years' worth of past papers - and had got an A in her prelim.
"When I opened it thought it was ok, but I got really upset with it," she said.
"I thought I was really prepared, and had the impression that I was over-prepared but it was so different to what I'd done before."
Question 11 in paper one reportedly caused particular concern for asking pupils about a "linear factor" when they had been taught about "real roots".
Another S5 pupil, based in South Lanarkshire, said the language was "totally unrecognisable" from what he had seen before.
He called for a review of the paper and wants a formal explanation from Qualifications Scotland.
"You can't do this to people," he said. "It needs to be fair, what was done just wasn't fair."
It is understood there have been no formal complaints from teachers about the difficulty level or layout of the paper.
The EIS was contacted for comment.
Exam papers are worked on for about 12 months before the exam.
If issues or complaints arise with a paper in the days after it has been sat then any problematic questions can be removed from the marking.
A Qualifications Scotland spokesperson said: “We welcome all feedback. It's important to provide reassurance about the quality assurance we have in place before and after exams.
“All exam papers are created and checked by experienced subject teachers, including the principal assessors, to make sure they are clear, fair and suitable for learners. Papers can vary in difficulty year by year and this is taken into account during our normal marking and grading process so that learners' final grades fairly reflect their achievements and maintain standards.”
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.