The Victorian Premier has issued a media release today:
Experts Strengthen This Year’s VCE Maths Exams
And the media release in full (and as PDF), with brief thoughts afterwards:
The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority has partnered with Senior Monash University mathematics specialists in a first-of-its-kind partnership to strengthen the quality of VCE maths exams and the review processes.
Minister for Education Ben Carroll announced the partnership today following recommendations from an independent review conducted earlier this year.
Senior Monash University mathematicians have been involved in the quality assurance processes for the 2024 VCE maths exams and the General Achievement Test (GAT) in a reviewing capacity.
From 2025, these academics will also be on the panel who write the VCAA’s VCE Mathematics examinations. This includes the examinations for Specialist Mathematics, Mathematical Methods and General Mathematics.
The partnership highlights a commitment to the quality of mathematics examinations in Victoria, ensuring that mathematics students are provided with the best opportunity to be assessed fairly on the skills they have attained during their VCE.
It follows the independent review into the VCAA’s examination setting policies, processes and procedures that was chaired by Dr John Bennett AM. The review recommended implementing more suitably qualified academics on the VCE Mathematics examination development panels and stronger examination review processes.
The VCAA has implemented or is on track to implement every single one of the recommendations made by the independent review.
For further information about the VCAA’s exam improvements, go to vcaa.vic.edu.au/assessment/vce-assessment/VCEExaminationImprovement/Pages/index.aspx
Quotes attributable to Minister for Education Ben Carroll
“VCE can be a stressful time and students and families rightly expect high quality exams that give the best opportunity for a fair assessment on skills attained throughout the year.”
“Boosting the numbers of suitably qualified, senior mathematics specialists to oversee the development and review processes of VCE maths exams was a key recommendation of Dr John Bennett’s independent review.”
Quotes attributable to VCAA Board Chair, Diane Joseph
“The VCAA is proud to partner with the School of Mathematics at Monash University, bringing additional academic expertise to further enhance the quality and clarity of VCE Mathematics examinations.”
“This collaboration underscores our commitment to delivering high-standard mathematics examinations for students in Victoria.”
Quotes attributable to Monash University School of Mathematics Head Professor Warwick Tucker
“By integrating the expertise of our mathematicians into the examination development and review processes, we aim to ensure that VCE Mathematics assessments are not only rigorous but also fair and reflective of the curriculum’s objectives.”
”This collaboration exemplifies our commitment to fostering excellence in mathematics education and providing students with the best possible opportunities to showcase their understanding.”
What does it all mean? Time will tell, and the exams are only the tip of the VCE iceberg, but it is obviously a very good thing. Even for 2024, when the mathematicians have been press-ganged into a presumably very quick vetting. 2025, with mathematicians seemingly in on the ground floor, should be significantly better again.
Credit to Minister Carroll, to VCAA under the CEO-ship of Kylie White, and to the Monash maths guys, in particular to Warwick Tucker.
UPDATE (22/10/24)
Below is today’s ABC coverage, a couple news alerts from local breakfast radio, featuring nice audio grabs of Warwick Tucker, and a morning TV report on the news channel.
UPDATE (26/10/24)
A very good interview with Kylie White and Warwick Tucker, from yesterday’s ABC Drive.
This can only be a good thing.
Although “relief” is probably my main reaction to this news.
Great result – would guess that exams have already informally been run past mathematicians. It’s takes ages to do all the paperwork – sign contracts etc etc. So you usually start work informally before then.
My reading of the press release is that the 2024 vetting would have been a bit more formal than “informal”. But yes, the “contracts” would presumably have been any bits of paper to permit action to begin.
Good result.
Time will show. Looks good though. Not really “world class” yet.
How about trying to bash hsc in the mean-time? It took Eddie 3 attempts to get q31. Not excusable.
well, Eddie is not world class either. I saw there was some HSC noise but haven’t looked. Do you have link?
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/22/hsc-maths-exam-example-questions
More than question 31
Thanks. Q31 looks like good solid work. Is there some trick that makes it difficult?
For E?
A bit original, as derv is in r, whereas minim condition has a condition/restriction on theta.
Interesting variation, methink
I found one with a solution, but am sure it can be done better. Well, simpler way.
Do they need to substantiate nature, minimum? Have not read this in the question.
It would be interesting to know how much workload for “Service” (the presumed category for this sort of work) the Monash staff involved get credited for this by their superiors (Head of School, Dean). And whether that workload, if measured in hours, is going to be worth the same in individual staff evaluations as, say, being involved in high school liaison programs, or being a webmaster. Since the exams are supposed to be “perfect” after the vetting, it is difficult for me to imagine how the *quality* of work could be assessed.
Christian, I don’t understand your point, but whatever it is, I think it is wrong.
In the olden days, that is when I was closer to Monash in several ways than now, the workload of staff was divided into research, teaching, and service; by default in a 40:40:20 ratio. My question asked how much of the third part would be filled by the vetting.
No management without measurement, as they say, and so I am also asking what the yardstick for the club, eh, the performance evaluation of this particular chore is.
Ask me (alternatively, the evil Mathologre) if my meaning is still unclear.
Yeah, ok, but I think you’re being a bit silly, and I feel that there’s an inappropriately snide undertone to your pondering. Although maybe I’m just still pissed off at the idiotic Herald Sun article. And Dr. Mike.
You are right, of course, that Monash University, like most or all Australian universities, is a basket case. It is a perfect storm of leftist special interest twatism and rightist neoliberal bean counting. But within that there are still leaders trying to do good, trying to keep a semblance of civilisation. I am convinced, at least on this issue, and seemingly more generally, that HoM Warwick is such a leader.
I have seen first hand Warwick, and Kais, really take ownership of the VCE exam issue, and they should be loudly applauded for this. The VCAA-Monash agreement is big because it formalises this ownership. It is way, way stronger than having individual mathematicians sign up, even if these individuals know their stuff and are committed.
Now, to your two points: credit and quality measurement. On the first, I don’t know how much “service” credit Monash staff will get for writing and vetting, and I don’t know if it’s a fair amount. Probably not, because writing and vetting high stake exams is, if undertaken properly, a very stressful job. It’s the old Rumsfeld “unknown unknowns” thing. Definitely, Warwick is awarding serious credit for doing this stuff, but it probably still falls short, even more so than is standard. Mathematicians involved in this will, at least in decent part, be doing this because they regard it as an important community service. It is good that people do such things, even if their employer is a dick, as Monash (but definitely not Warwick) certainly is.
As for quality measurement, your suggestion that “the exams are supposed to be ‘perfect’ after the vetting” is obviously absurd. It is meaningless to talk about “perfect” exams, for a multitude of reasons. There are obviously some objective standards and VCAA has, year on year, failed these objective standards, for decades. But plenty of the standards are subjective, trade offs between topics, trade offs between precision and clarity, the weight given to the idiot CAS stuff, and so on. This is intrinsic to the task.
But it is also, right now and for the forseeable future, extrinsic to the task. The Monash guys did what they could in 2024, when they were basically given fait accompli exams to vet. In 2025 and beyond, mathematicians will be in on the ground floor, co-writing as well as co-vetting. (There will still be teachers involved as, at least arguably, there should.) But still, the Study Design is screwed, CAS is screwed and the entire VCE mathematics culture is screwed. The Monash guys must respect that reality and they are very constrained by that reality. They are trying to write good VCE mathematics exams for students and teachers who have no clue what a good VCE mathematics exam might look like and who are expecting the same old swill. It is a very very very difficult thing to restore a culture that has been so thoroughly perverted.
So, how does the quality of the vetters’ (and writers’) work get measured? It will definitely get measured by teacher-student opinion and by popular opinion, which may or may not be fair. But there are plenty of people watching *very* closely to what is happening this year, even given Monash came in very late to exam production process, and that includes the Monash department. Again, the Monash-VCAA agreement means that Monash Maths has taken (some) ownership of the exams; if there are glitches, or outright screw-ups, they have to consider the extent to which they are responsible. My reading of the room is that both Monash (Warwick) and VCAA (Kylie) are, at least for now, being properly responsible about this, that they are both acting in good faith and disinclined to pass the buck.
I am slightly aghast about how negatively you received my post. It’s hard for me to reply to it, to begin with, because it contradicts itself. You distinguish yourself the employer and admin folk on the one hand, and those who actually do the vetting work on the other. Why am I not being granted this distinction? Whatever procedure is being used to weight or assess the vetting – which is all I asked really – has no bearing whatsoever on my view of the quality and need for the work being carried out by the folks you name.
‘Perfect’ was meant as a synonym for, not suffering from errors that harm students.
Snide? Maybe, but you also take your allowances, as most readers here would agree for sure.
Oh God, Christian. I’ve had to deal with Dr. Mike. Let’s not have melodrama here as well. I worked hard to answer you.