Questions over whether Pearson had “sufficient” challenge and oversight as it developed SATs systems will be raised during an independent review of this year’s results fiasco. It will also examine how quickly the exams giant attempted to resolve risks and if the process to hand the £130-million contract to the firm was robust. SATs results were published yesterday – nine days after their original release date – following weeks of issues with Pearson’s marking and data systems. Ofsted chair Christine Gilbert will lead a review into the delays, investigating the precise nature of the problems, why they occurred and what changes could be made. Having started yesterday, it will gather evidence from August and September, before submitting a final report to the education secretary in October. The review may interview individuals from Pearson, the Standards and Testing Agency (STA), Department for Education or Ofqual. It will also seek views from other interested parties, such as schools, trusts, markers, unions and councils. The terms of reference for the review, published today, set out the initial questions the education secretary expects to be considered at a minimum. Precise nature of issues Exams giant Pearson was awarded the contract for managing the test in 2024, after beating outsourcer Capita who used to manage the tests. This is the first year Pearson oversaw SATs delivery after an 18-month transition period that was built into the contract. Schools Week reported how markers experienced technical glitches in the marking portal which slowed them down from marking papers. After assuring that results would be delivered on time, Pearson announced publicly on 2 July they would be delayed. The review will ask what issues arose during the operation, when they emerged, how and when they were communicated to the STA and what was done to resolve them. It will also ask how quickly Pearson moved to resolve the key issues and how they were communicated to the sector. Why did issues occur? Pearson’s role as a contractor will also come under scrutiny. Questions will be asked about what its bid said about its ability to fulfil the contract, how it performed during the set-up and test cycle periods against key milestones, as well as what evidence and assurance was provided to the STA against these milestones. It will also ask how Pearson identified risks, how they were communicated to the STA, and about its assessment of risks to delivery was at various points in the set-up period and test cycle. Gilbert’s review will also question how effective the information Pearson provided was in identifying and resolving those issues. Ofsted chair Christine Gilbert Role of STA, DfE, and Ofqual The STA and Pearson are responsible for development and delivery of SATs, including the marking process, while Ofqual is responsible for providing oversight and making sure results are accurate. The review will ask what role the STA, DfE and Ofqual played in management, governance and oversight, and how those roles were exercised when the issues occurred. It will question whether the STA provided “sufficient challenge” to Pearson where risks were identified, and whether Ofqual provided “sufficient oversight” during the set-up and live-test period. It will also consider whether the process to award the contract was robust. It will look at whether they were any “central requirements” in the procurement or contract management that had a positive or negative impact on the delivery failures. What should change? The review will ask whether any features of the test operations process, or any of the roles played by different organisations, should be changed to prevent these issues from happening again. Whether Ofqual’s regulatory remit is fit for purpose will also be considered, taking into account any proposed changes to the roles of the STA and the DfE, as well as the overall delivery model for assessments.