In Praise of VCAA CEO, Kylie White

The VCE exam leak story is obviously big news, with both Melbourne newspapers running prominent reports and op eds, steadily increasing the heat. The Age published a strong editorial yesterday, which included a (dug up and incongruous) quote from me. The Minister for Education has announced a (third) review of VCAA’s exam processes, and the opposition education spokesperson has called for VCAA CEO, Kylie White, to resign or be sacked.

I am a small part of this story whether I like it or not (not), if only in a butterfly wings–chaos sort of way. So, I would like to provide my perspective. I will only write a little about the recent aspects. I will also not opine on whether White “should” be removed as CEO: it was obviously a very big screw-up; obviously the screw-up was not directly White’s fault; and obviously the buck stops with White. Others can fight over the extent and weight of those obviouses, and the political and journalistic and social forces will push how they push. What I want to do here is explain why I believe the removal of White as VCAA CEO would be a massive setback for Victorian education.

********************************************************************

THE HISTORY

Those who want to do the tldr thing can skip to the penultimate section. For those who want to properly understand the story, read on for the history and prehistory.

To properly explain my point of view, I have to provide a fair bit of background, beginning with the current story. I became aware of the story a couple days before it hit the news: a commenter on the blog had noted the leaking of the planned Specialist Exam 1 question, and the identical format of the replacement question. For whatever reason, the comment spurred zero response from the many readers of this blog. I forgot about it until Herald Sun reporter, Susie O’Brien broke the story and then I wrote on it: I indicated that, in terms of fairness, I regarded the leak-then-replacement on the SM1 exam to be no big deal; this is still my opinion. I think it is fair to say that opinion on the blog has been mixed. Off the blog, John Kermond has been everywhere in the media indicating it is a big deal (and he has now argued his case on the blog). Maybe. It is arguable that my opinion is coloured by other matters, not least O’Brien’s previous exam story, which included quotes from me and which (the print version of) was an absurd beat-up. It is reasonable to hold my opinion up to scrutiny. I believe the actions and opinions of others are similarly open to scrutiny. In any case, it seems clear that the public is squarely of the opinion that it is a big deal, both on the leaking itself (no argument) and the resulting unfairness (argument). I will just make one final note on the fairness aspect: I think there may be some over-extolment of the VCE exams, the presentation of the exams as these deep, difficult tests. The exams are extremely important, of course, and no gimmes. But I believe the tests are significantly more formulaic than people understand or, in some cases, are willing to admit. This aspect of the exams is highly relevant to the current debate.

Much of the public is aware that there is a history preceding this year’s exams story. Much of this much, however, knows and understands significantly less of this history, and prehistory, than they imagine. I will explain as briefly as possible, with reference only to the mathematics exams.

It is common knowledge that there were “errors” in the 2023 exams, and it is semi-common knowledge that there were “errors” in the 2022 exams. It is important to note, however, that the errors in the two years were largely of a very different character. In brief, the headline 2023 errors were errors of process and administration: mislabelled graphs and misplaced matrix entries and so forth. In contrast, the headline 2022 errors were conceptual errors: simply, the exam writers got the maths wrong. (it is not a big surprise that the reporters, and thus the general public, failed to appreciate the distinction.) The 2023 exams also contained conceptual errors, including very bad ones, although not as bad as 2022. In this light, 2024 is more like 2023 than 2022: there have been some annoyances on this year’s exams, a couple that amount to “mathematical errors”, but that aspect has been very minor in comparison to previous years, and the headline screw-up is administrative in nature. This is not to argue that one type of “error” is more important than the other. The point is that the causes of such errors and thus the ways to try to avoid them reoccurring are largely distinct. (There is overlap: the vetting of the exams is a bit of one and a bit of the other.)

********************************************************************

THE PREHISTORY

My mathematician-centred concern has always been with the fundamental, mathematical exam errors, which have been an issue from long, long before 2023 and 2022. VCE mathematics subjects, and the exams in particular, have been a basket case for decades. As well, although errors have always been common, the issues with the exams have extended well beyond the presence of these errors. (For a sense of the errors, see the compilations, here and here. For some sense of the broader issues, see this general critique of the 2022 exams.)

Throughout the decades, no one gave a stuff.

Well, to be more precise, no one with power or a voice gave a stuff. VCAA didn’t give a stuff. The successive Ministers of Education didn’t give a stuff. The Mathematical Association of Victoria, with its proud, century-long history of representing teachers, didn’t give a stuff. The Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute, the mathematician body with the specific charge to address such educational matters, didn’t give a stuff. Victorian mathematicians didn’t give a stuff. Victorian maths ed academics didn’t give a stuff. Journalists didn’t give a stuff. There were always some teachers who gave a stuff, of course, typically older and smarter and grumpier teachers, such as Kermond now. But these teachers had no voice and no one to represent them. All teachers had to cope with it, of course, but most of those with sufficient sense to be annoyed only gave a stuff in a resigned manner, like Soviet citizens coping with centralised madness. When 2022 rolled around, which is when I began to get seriously involved, this was the degraded mathematics culture on offer, with not a single prominent person or group questioning it, let alone challenging it.

(It is not important why I got involved and the manner in which I did, but see here and here.)

********************************************************************

THE REVIEWS

The obvious way for VCAA to improve the content of the mathematics exams is to employ sufficiently strong mathematicians; for a few reasons this is insufficient but it is the necessary place to begin. With this conscious thought, in mid 2022 Burkard Polster and I sought to directly engage with VCAA, attacking their exams for the continual occurrence of errors. This was VCAA’s weak spot: an undeniable, systemic problem. Or at least one would have thought it was undeniable. Soon after, VCAA kindly obliged, with the 2022 exams containing some absolute howlers. Burkard and I went full force.

This confrontation led to the first VCAA exam review, conducted by Deloitte (sic). Manipulated to be meaningless by VCAA under then CEO, Stephen Gniel, the review was a sham from beginning to end. VCAA was also unconscionably rude from beginning to end. The final Deloitte report, which was hidden from view until released under FOI, was farcical. Nonetheless, the review contained some damning content in a little corner, about which VCAA lied: to me and Burkard; to Kermond; and to the media.

Burkard and I were outraged by the Deloitte farce, and we responded with an open letter to the Minister of Education. Separately, Kermond had been outraged by VCAA’s stonewalling and went the parliamentary inquiry path, leading to O’Brien’s coverage of 2022. Then, with the occurrence of the 2023 exam errors, there was a perfect tri-storm of VCAA-bashing, leading to the second review.

The second review, conducted by former NESA CEO, Dr. John Bennett, was initiated by the Minister’s office rather than VCAA and, whether by luck or skill, it was excellent. The final report had many recommendations, about processes as well as exam “quality”. In particular, the report gave VCAA a very clear directive: employ strong mathematicians.

********************************************************************

KYLIE WHITE

Burkard and I first met White near the end of 2023, just prior to the launching of the Bennett review. Gniel had been seconded to ACARA, just in time to avoid most of the storm, and White was acting CEO. We met White, along with a couple of other VCAA and Minister reps, on the back of the open letter; in brief, they wanted to know, genuinely as it turns out, why we troublemakers were making trouble. I left the meeting with some doubts about the coming review but also with a very good impression of White.

It wasn’t what White said that impressed me. It was that she said almost nothing. While the others questioned me and Burkard, on occasion in an ignorant and missfed manner, White simply listened. Intently. You could hear her concentrate, trying to make sense of it.

Once the Bennett report came out, and even before, White got to work and she has been unceasingly great. She has been working tirelessly on both the letter and the spirit of Bennett. I have met White only a couple times since and have exchanged only a couple emails, but I have been watching from the sidelines, seeing how incredibly hard she has been working to reform VCAA. In particular and closest to my interests, White, eventually appointed permanent CEO, has worked tirelessly to engage seriously strong mathematicians in the exam process, including in a last-minute all-hands-on-deck manner for 2024. My sense is that the mathematicians who have now engaged with VCAA are just as impressed with White.

It has also been more than impressions: the effects have been tangible and very large. The 2024 exams, even though only addressed by the new mathematicians in an all-hands-on-deck manner are, at least in terms of mathematical sense, undeniably the best for many, many years. Every past recent year, I have spent time documenting very major errors. This year, to my current knowledge there are none. There are some nitpicks, some reasonably large, but there has been nothing like the mega-nonsense that I have seen each and every previous year.

Beyond that, White has worked to cement this excellent reform in place. The on-going agreement announced just a month ago, for Monash to supply mathematicians for the writing and vetting of VCE exams, is a very big deal. A very big chunk of the credit goes to White.

None of this is to suggest that White is the radical reformer that I would want. But, with the Rolling Stones song ringing in my head, she is the solid, hard-working, intelligent and principled bureaucrat that VCAA desperately needed, and desperately still needs. The amount of reform still required of VCAA is huge. It will be a massive setback if White were to now cease being CEO.

********************************************************************

THE REPORTERS

Finally, a word on the reporters. There is, of course, a big story surrounding the 2024 exams. And reporters being reporters, they are happier if there is a little, or a lot, of blood. It’s the nature of the game. But there is something important to note about this reporting.

The Monash-VCAA agreement was an extremely important development and should have been a significant news story. Did any of the reporters now covering the exams, however, write anything on this agreement? Did any of their colleagues? The ABC covered it well, but did either the Herald Sun or the Age have a single report on the Monash-VCAA agreement? Maybe, but I looked pretty hard and I could not find a scrap. Not one single word.

Beyond that, Kermond, who has been quoted far and wide on the 2024 screw-up, noted that he had praised the VCAA CEO on Monash partnering and the 2024 exams to “several journalists”, but that his praises “were not quoted in the media reports”. It was remarkably naive of Kermond to imagine it would have been otherwise, but he made it clear that he is “not whining about that”. Well, I will.

Why did these reporters not cover any of this good and important news? Because, primarily, their job is to sell, not to focus upon what is important. If there is something important that is less sexy then they couldn’t care less whether or not it is reported. And if ignoring importance increases the chances that someone like White will be sacrificed, well, c’est la guerre and all the better.

The reporters have a big and legitimate story with the 2024 exams. They are getting lots an lots of eyes. I, however, cannot read their “won’t someone think of the children” sanctimony without vomiting in my mouth.