There have appeared a number of things to write about, but I have been too crazy-busy to write on any of it. That should change a little now, and I will try to chip away at the backlog, but imminent things first. Public submissions for Stage Two of Yehudi Blacher’s VCAA review close Monday. So, Dear Readers, have your laptop in your lap while watching the footy and get writing.
“But Does Blacher matter?”, I hear you ask. Honestly, I don’t know. “So, given it may be a waste of time, do we still have to do it?” Hell, yes.
The only way to have VCAA change is for the public to apply sufficient pressure to demand change. We try what we can try, and what we can try at the moment is submissions via Blacher. So, yes, you gotta do it. Consider it the fee for all the catharsis that this blog provides.
Some details on the scope of Blacher’s review are below, and see the previous posts, here and here. Get to it. Your submission can be brief, and it may even be preferable to be brief, but, however you do it, you gotta do it.
**************************************************
The Blacher review is 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
Done; thanks for the reminder.
Thanks, Terry. This matters.
Roughly how long did you go? I started writing and it was all looking a bit War and Peace before I saved the draft. Might make sense for Marty to put in a long, meaty submission, as a semi-institutional actor. But feels a bit odd from a random teacher or VCE coordinator.
Thanks very much for doing it, Alex. It matters.
I am sure that what will count much more than one meaty submission, from me or anyone, is the number of submissions and the consistency of the message of discontent. If a hundred teachers declare that the SAC system is an exhausting nightmare overruled by little Hitler thugs, that will be heard. If a hundred ex-students declare that the VCE mathematics prepared them for nothing, that will be heard.
CAS, the utter lack of sense or depth in the curriculum, pseudocode, stats crap, all of it administered by a thuggish, anal-retentive authority without an ounce of mathematical nous or genuine human empathy or proper accountability. Just hit the high (i.e low) notes, quickly and respectfully but clearly and forcefully, and you’ve done your job.
Done. I mostly laid into SACs and CAS-exams but had a bit of a go at the curriculum documentation.
Said I didn’t need to remain anonymous and gave my school email address, which hopefully will lend some weight to my feedback.
I wasn’t all negative either. I do think the last couple of years the exams have been better and the process of releasing papers and marking guidelines is certainly improved.
The Paper 2 exams are still less-than-great for all subjects and the rather annoying weighting of the CAS based assessments throughout the entirety of the MM and SM courses (all SACs and 2/3 of the exam marks are CAS-active) was my most pointed critique though.
Thank you, RF. It is very reasonable to note that there have been improvements, particularly since that progress, and definitely progress on the progress, is still under threat.
Interesting that it just took plaintext as a submission. Normally you’d attach a document or something I would’ve thought. I’m guessing this means they’re going to use AI to analyse them.
Yeah, I noticed. Awful.