It is not our intention, much less our desire, to be actively monitoring Foundation Mathematics. Whatever the real or imagined purposes for such a subject, it is of close to zero interest to us. We shall tend to avoid it as we do Further-General, but more so, preferring to stick to mathematics subjects. Sometimes, however, one does not get to choose.
Jay, a not-so-silent commenter, has bobbed up and, for whatever perverse reason, has decided to go through the inaugural Foundation Exam and report (Word, idiots) with a fine tooth comb. Forcing us to do the same. Jay owes us.
The Foundation exam, even by VCAA standards, is a mess. There are errors, of course, some flagged by Young Teacher on the exam discussion post. But, as Jay has documented, it goes way beyond Young Teachers’ specific flags. The general sloppiness of the exam, the number of errors, both minor and major, is astonishing. We have updated the Foundation error list post, itemising the long list of errors, but there is much beyond that, plenty of oddity and poor phrasing and report non sequiturs. And, it must be noted again, the exam is longer than War and Peace.
It is difficult to imagine what the writers and vetters were thinking, but the more important question is, post-Bennett, will they be rethinking? There are reasons to doubt it. Although the Bennett report recommended various administrative fixes for the mathematics (and other) exams, the key point was to ensure the proper involvement of solid academic mathematicians, from the earliest stages through to the final vetting. There is quite possibly a view in VCAA, however, that such mathematicians are not required for the very low level of mathematics being tested in and underlying Foundation Mathematics. This is correct, and it is wrong.
Avoiding the swamp of nonsense in the Foundation exam does not require a strong academic mathematician. What it requires is competence and an attention to detail. In principle, this person(s) need not be an academic mathematician but it needs to be someone who has it in his blood to be very careful with mathematical phrasing.
The Foundation exam is a perfect exemplar of teachers’ culture of mediocrity, the “this’ll do” attitude essential to teachers’ survival and anathema to the culture of precision required for the production of good exams and good exam reports. The subject, any subject, requires at least one intelligent fusspot, a meticulous pain in the ass. Which cannot be a teacher, and which cannot be a maths ed clown, and which leaves us with little option.
I couldn’t care less about Foundation Mathematics. I’m quite happy to see the subject sink into the sea. But presumably VCAA cares, that students are being required to make sense of many questions that can be be made sense of in multiple ways or in no way at all. And, if VCAA cares, if VCAA wants to avoid the continuance of its culture of mediocrity, then VCAA will have to act to fix it. Foundation mathematics, as does every VCE subject, requires a culture of precision, which, it appears, can only be encouraged and be demanded by solid academic leadership.
There was an “attempt” to coopt some mathematicians to vet this exam but the department was only notified of the draft on the weekend before it was due to be submitted. I mean really- asking us to look at it the weekend before it is due? Unsurprisingly nobody elected to give up their weekend to vet a rubbish unit like this.
To do this properly, at least have it on a secure server with a set of accredited vetters and a set timetable for first and second checks before VCAA can use the exam
Really? VCAA attempted to get “mathematicians” for the 2023 Foundation Mathematics Exam? Why, and why the last minute? And, do you know what VCAA meant by “mathematicians”?
I don’t if I’d call FM a “rubbish unit”, although it’s obviously not a mathematics unit in any meaningful sense. But “rubbish’ or not, FM students have the right to expect exam questions to be correct and coherent. Who’s gonna ensure that?
There was an email sent out to the maths department by a prof on a Friday morning asking for volunteers to proofread the Foundation Mathematics exam.
In the email it was stated that the timeline was by the following Monday and it was with regards to the recent ministerial directive that external reviewers would be appreciated. There was an apology for the lateness of the request but we had only just been requested to help out. This was all happening on the fly as the complaints about the VCAA had only recently elicited the ministerial response. Prior to that the VCAA had just ignored everyone
OK, so you’re talking about getting vetters for the 2024 FM exam, not the 2023 exam which I have been happening.
That’s definitely a sub-optimal approach to recruiting proper vetters. In any Victorian maths department there would be a decent fraction of the “mathematicians” that I wouldn’t let near an important exam. But of course, when you’re rushing to right the ship, you do what you can.
I wouldn’t blame VCAA for the short notice, since they were (finally) reacting very quickly to the 2023 and 2022 storms, and to imposition of mathematical reality into their exam production. I also wouldn’t blame mathematicians for ignoring the hospital handpass and letting the ball go out of bounds. But it is regrettable. Presumably the 2024 FM exam will be a mess, in the same manner as 2023.
I don’t think there’d be such short notice for a 2024 exam. Is it possible that it was rushed extremely last minute? The infamous General Maths exam 2 occurred on Oct 30. The minister ordered a review into it on Oct 31 (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/31/apology-to-year-12-students-after-mistakes-found-in-victorian-maths-exam). The Foundation Maths exam was a full 2 weeks later (14 November)
So I’m wondering whether the email was sent on November 3, with a deadline of November 6, which would give them 8 days to re-print and distribute the exams?
Nah. Definitely Simon is talking about scrambling in late 2023 for vetters for the 2024 exam. If you look at Deloitte or Bennett, the timescale for producing these exams is up there with the Sistine Chapel.