We had another piece of QCAA nonsense ready to go, but we’re going to interrupt this broadcast to take a quick whack at VCAA.
Yesterday, I got a text from a good friend (and ex-student), concerned that their tutee had been cheated out of a mark on a SAC. So, I took a look. My friend was incorrect; the student had not been cheated out of a mark. But my friend and the tutee had missed a much larger point: the question was stuffed. The SAC question could not be properly answered at all.
SACs are shit. Everyone knows that SACs are shit. There is no point in repeating the whole damn post, or the follow-up post. But I will repeat, loudly, a fundamental point: the majority of teachers have neither the time nor the mathematical background necessary to write a coherent and mathematically correct SAC. As I wrote,
Even if the subjects were coherent, even if they were unpoisoned by CAS and were unconstrained by vague and ridiculous conditions, even then writing a good SAC would be a very difficult and massively time-consuming task. Most teachers just don’t have the mathematical background, or the literary skill, to write a coherent, correct and mathematically rich SAC; many cannot even recognise one. And, that’s writing a good SAC for this imaginary good subject; writing a good SAC for these fundamentally flawed subjects with their ridiculous constraints is close to impossible, even for a strong teacher. And which teachers, particularly weaker teachers, have the time to compose such a good SAC? Why bother trying? And so, with the greatest common sense, most teachers do not. Most teachers stick to the audit-proof and meaningless formulaic SAC bullshit that the VCAA expects and effectively demands.
I have seldom seen a SAC that I liked. I have seldom seen a SAC that did not contain at least one significant error. What I was alerted to yesterday appears to be entirely standard. So why write on it now, other than to howl at the moon? Well, let’s not knock howling at the moon, but there are other reasons.
To begin, this SAC came from a name school. Not Polo Grammar, not Our Ladies of Perpetual Properness, but not far behind. This is happening at the good (or at least expensive) schools, with the good (or at least expensive) teachers. Imagine, then, what it is going on at Bogan High.
Secondly, the fundamental error the teacher made is identical to an error VCAA made on a recent exam. So, are we going to blame the teacher? Hell, no. Well, rather, yes; the teacher also has a responsibility to know their maths. But the buck obviously stops with VCAA, and with the mathematical muppets that VCAA has employed to write their exams.
This madness is endemic but, because it is all school-by-school, there is no proper way to bring it to light. Of course I cannot name the school, much less the teacher, and I would never wish to. They are also not the point, or at least not the main point. Again, however the teacher got this question wrong, VCAA got it wrong first. But then what to do?
Does VCAA care? Is VCAA even aware? I can see no evidence of either. VCAA’s only concerns appear to be that a SAC has open-ended CAS-riddled twaddle, and that the paper for students to write on isn’t lined (sic). And for all my impressive bashing skills, I can see no proper way to bash this nonsense. Because it is all hidden.
That ends the howl. Normal QCAA programming will resume tomorrow.
There is zero point. They exhaust the teachers and stress the students, for zero benefit and massive loss. It is insane.
It’s interesting that you think the top schools are writing VCAA compliant SACs. I’ve seen plenty and it’s an open secret that a lot of schools simply write whatever they want and then submit something else entirely when an audit comes around.
Isn’t this why VCAA have started requiring student work samples from the SACs now? I’m not sure what effect that has had.
One would presume that the effect is that more SACs fail the audit. The more information provided, the greater opportunity for the littler hitlers to be little hitlers, which, overwhelmingly, is what the auditing is about.
Thanks “Anonymous”, but please fill in a name when you comment. A fake name is fine.
Before getting to your “top schools” query, I think it is important to distinguish three distinct but related questions about a given SAC. I think I laid it out pretty well in the original post, but last night I was more interested in howling and in giving VCAA a quick whack, and the subsequent post is clumsy. The questions are:
(a) Is the SAC mathematically accurate?
(b) Is the SAC good?
(c) Is the SAC “compliant”?
Last night, I was primarily interested in (a), and I was particularly interested because the SAC error was stark and undeniable, and because the error was identical in mathematical misunderstanding to an error on a VCE exam.
Generally, there is not much to say about (b). The SACs are almost invariably not good, because the subjects and the SAC constraints make it almost impossible for the SAC to be good, and few teachers have the either the time or the mathematical grounding or, sensibly, the desire to do it well.
Obviously, teachers are most concerned about (c), and obviously this, and plenty else, makes the entire SAC system insane. In particular, what really really pisses me off is that VCAA does its little hitler thing with the SAC auditing while simultaneously not giving a damn when they screw up the exams or their grading, for which they are typically answerable to no one. They are the most arrogant, most appalling hypocrites.
Now, in all this, is there a distinction between the “top schools”, either in what the school do or how they are treated by VCAA’s Karens? I think the entire “top school” thing is worth a post, if not a number of posts, but I think there are.
I strongly suspect that, in general, “top schools” do better, but not at all well, on (a) and (b). The “top schools” generally have better working conditions and thus can attract stronger teachers. They also tend to have more support resources, so that teachers are less often occupied by filling in for missing teachers and other dropped balls, and so on.
But, finally, do “top schools” do better on (c)? Honestly, i don’t know. You, “Anonymous”, suspect otherwise, and it wouldn’t surprise me. I would imagine that “top schools” are better at both playing the game and gaming the game.
I would also not for a minute presume that VCAA treats all schools the same or fairly in regard to audits. The insane SAC regulations mean that a VCAA auditor can do pretty much what they damn well please, and I am not going to simply presume that a VCAA auditor acts in good faith. Why would I? VCAA may have integrity in this regard, but it would need to be proved to me.
I really, REALLY hope everyone who thinks SACs are rubbish took the time to say as much in the recent VCAA review. I did and it was 80% of my submission as I genuinely think the exams are (somewhat) salvageable, the SAC system is not.
And the entire audit process just makes it all worse.
I agree with that, although I’d probably put the “somewhat” in italics.
It was a statement of hope as well as belief.
I never thought I would miss the CAT days, but here we are!
Jesus. Just have exams. Everything else is simply pretence.
Why does VCAA not have just exams?
You’d have to ask VCAA, but I think the idea is that: (a) SACs are less stressful than 100% exams; (b) SACs are better for learning stuff. Of course, both of these are false.
According to people who know more about this than I do… it was back in 1976 with the creation of VISE (took over from VUSEB but came before VCAB, VBOS, BOS and now VCAA) when there was a general desire to involve “schools-based assessments” for some reason.
Exams are better than SACs, on this I think most readers here will agree, but even then they need to be decent exams and actually test Mathematics, not reading comprehension (see any of the recent QCAA posts)
FWIW.
VCCA have SACs, the IBO have IAs, the SACE have investigations, the …
The IBO IAs are individual explorations, done over a period of time, with a strong focus on “reflection” and “personal engagement”.
The SACE investigations are, well, ‘flexible’.
They could look like an IBO IA, or closer to a SAC (but not completed under supervision) or something in between.
I have no personal experience with SACs, so what follows refers to the IBO IAs and the SACE Investigations.
Having:
• been an active teacher at the dawn of these creatures existence as a piece of assessment (so I have a decent understanding of the why, and in which subjects, they became a thing in the first place),
• been in charge of the moderation of such things,
• been a mentor to many students as they navigate the process, and
• having devoted a lot of hours to thinking about their worth,
my current conclusion is that they can be really wonderful learning experience for some students.
But.
Sadly, they are rendered un–wonderful and painful for most, as a result of various things, not the least being they are a piece of assessment.
The IA EA in IB seems like a good, if very tiring, thing, because the student and teacher can choose something genuinely interesting to investigate. There’s not a snowflake’s chance of doing that with VCAA’s SAC.
Are you suggesting that within SACE the student can do something more like an IA than a SAC? I don’t believe you.
From the official document, at:
https://www.sace.sa.edu.au/documents/652891/12131490/Stage+2+Mathematical+Methods+Subject+Outline.docx/01d8d48a-392d-b1f1-76db-422eab82bf43?version=1.0
“Assessment Type 2: Mathematical Investigation (20%)
Students complete one mathematical investigation.
Students investigate mathematical relationships, concepts, or problems, which may be set in an applied context. The subject of a mathematical investigation may be derived from one or more subtopics, although it can also relate to a whole topic or across topics.
A mathematical investigation may be initiated by a student, a group of students, or the teacher. Teachers should give some direction about the appropriateness of each student’s choice, and guide and support students’ progress in an investigation. For this investigation there must be minimal teacher direction and teachers must allow the opportunity for students to extend the investigation in an open-ended context.
Students demonstrate their problem-solving strategies as well as their knowledge, skills, and understanding in the investigation. They are encouraged to use a variety of mathematical and other software (e.g. computer algebra systems (CAS), spreadsheets, statistical packages) to enhance their investigation. The generation of data and the exploration of patterns and structures, or changing parameters, may provide an important focus. From these, students may recognise different patterns or structures. Notation, terminology, forms of representation of information gathered or produced, calculations, evidence of technological skills, and results are important considerations.
Students complete a report for the mathematical investigation.
In the report, students interpret and justify results, and draw conclusions. They give appropriate explanations and arguments. The mathematical investigation may provide an opportunity to develop, test, and prove conjectures.
The report may take a variety of forms, but would usually include the following:
• an outline of the problem and context
• the method required to find a solution, in terms of the mathematical model or strategy used
• the application of the mathematical model or strategy, including
– relevant data and/or information
– mathematical calculations and results, using appropriate representations
– the analysis and interpretation of results, including consideration of the reasonableness and limitations of the results
• the results and conclusions in the context of the problem.
A bibliography and appendices, as appropriate, may be used.
The format of the investigation report may be written or multimodal.
The investigation report, excluding bibliography and appendices if used, must be a maximum of 12 A4 pages if written, or the equivalent in multimodal form. The maximum page limit is for single-sided A4 pages with minimum font size 10. Page reduction, such as two A4 pages reduced to fit on one A4 page, is not acceptable. Conclusions, interpretations and/or arguments that are required for the assessment must be presented in the report, and not in an appendix. Appendices are used only to support the report, and do not form part of the assessment decision.
For this assessment type, students provide evidence of their learning in relation to the following assessment design criteria:
• concepts and techniques
• reasoning and communication.”
You can transcribe my texts in reply. I can’t be bothered.
What is happening V what could happen.
That’s the summary.
I don’t care what one sensible or privileged school is grudgingly permitted to do. I want the shitkickers at Shitkicker High to be provided the same opportunities, the opportunities that they used to be provided as a matter of public common sense and basic decency. That ain’t gonna happen without a revolution.
Fuck I hate this stuff. I really fucking hate it.
Are there only two mathematics subjects in SACE?
SACE has General, Methods and Specialist (or did in 2018) as do most states (some have slightly different names) and it seems all states have at least three different courses (NSW has four).