A couple weeks ago, Yehudi Blacher came out with his report on VCAA and the exam leak mess. As we wrote, Blacher did not appear incisive like Bennett, and there is reason also to be concerned that Blacher will derail the good and continuing progress due to Bennett (in combination with VCAA’s positive response to Bennett). Blacher’s report was only the first part of a double-banger, however, and the second bang may be much louder, particularly if the public adds some fuel. The public has been invited to do so, by June 30.
The first stage of Blacher’s review was designed to be narrowly focused, to quickly get to the bottom of how the exam leaks came about and to make consequent recommendations. The second stage, now underway, is a much broader look at VCAA, although still largely focussed on administrative aspects:
The review’s second stage will include a review of the VCAA’s structure, operations, culture and capability, including benchmarking and comprehensive consultation with VCAA staff and key stakeholders.
Nonetheless, there appears to be sufficient scope to capture a review of substantive VCAA failings, particularly given the invitation for public submissions:
We are looking for feedback from the Victorian community that engage with the VCAA that will support the Review in understanding how the VCAA is performing to deliver its responsibilities. Your submission may include your experiences with the VCAA directly or indirectly, your views on how effectively the VCAA delivers on its important functions, and opportunities that you see for the VCAA to improve or operate differently.
The complete terms of reference are here, but in brief the review will cover all of VCAA’s functions, and:
The Review will:
• examine whether all aspects of the VCAA are working effectively to deliver on its functions and statutory responsibilities
• take stock of how the VCAA is performing in the context of recommendations made by recent reviews
• identify further reforms that will support the VCAA’s critical roles for students, schools and the Victorian community
Will this third review make any difference? it is unclear. Deloitte made no difference, as it was designed to do, but Bennett has made and is making significant difference. Blacher is less clear, but if nothing else Blacher could be used to reenforce Bennett.
In any case, readers here should work under the assumption that Blacher 2.0 will make a difference, and they should work under the assumption that public submissions will make a difference to that difference. So, Dear Readers, get to work. You have until June 30 to submit.
What teacher has the time?
Certainly not this one.
Make the time, or stop whining.
Even something very brief is worth doing. Often they count responses based on how many there are, rather than necessarily the detailed content.
Exactly. It is not at all clear that a book-length manifesto is preferable to a short and sharp criticism/suggestion backed by a crystal example, and it probably is not.