We are way, way behind on things, on everything. There are a ton of posts to get out “soon”, and real life keeps hammering on the door. We’ll try to get back to posting, and there’s a few short ones that we may be able to throw up (so to speak).
Last week, the Victorian Labor Government issued a press release:
CONFIDENCE IN EXAMS NOW AND IN THE FUTURE
This was to announce $200 million being spent to fix up VCAA, in the wake of the 2024 exam leak business and the subsequent Blacher twaddle report.
Does this matter? Well, it can’t hurt. One of the big problems with VCAA is a very stressed and very clunky admin, with too few worker ants for the system they have. The press release points to two Blacher recommendations:
• making the VCAA’s budget sustainable
• upgrading technology so operations are more reliable
So, sure. Go for it. But should we now be “confident” in VCAA’s exams? Hardly.
Labor’s press release had a few quotes attributable to the Minister for Education, Ben Carroll:
“Victorian students deserve a world-class education, and this investment makes sure the VCAA can deliver it.”
No, it does not remotely do that. What it might do is ensure there are fewer and smaller administrative screw-ups. But reducing screw-ups is entirely separate to delivering a “world-class education”.
“The [Blacher] review left no stone unturned in identifying what went wrong with the exams — and we’re fixing them.”
Um, Yehudi, we have a few stones here if you’re interested. We even turned them over for you.
“A stronger, more accountable VCAA means students, families and schools can have full confidence in VCE exams.”
Hands up everyone who now has full confidence in the VCE exams?
What would give us confidence that VCAA will stop stuffing up the exams is when VCAA stops stuffing up the exams. Still, maybe Boss Smith can use some of his new-found loot to buy a boat and to send a few of VCAA’s nitwits out to sea. It won’t make VCAA’s exams “world-class” but VCAA might at least then learn the meaning of the term.
$200m seems like an awfully big number without providing a breakdown of what it is being spent on. Is there something out there to show a carve up of where it is actually going?
Is $200M a lot of money? i agree, it sounds like a lot but I have no idea how much things cost. I also don’t know the break-down, or where one could find it, but I doubt that Carroll just handed Smith a sack of cash and said “fix things”.
Treasury will have the breakdown as will VCAA – very very unlikely to be made public.
One could FOI it, although it’d be slow, even if successful, and I’m not sure much would be learned.
Correct
$200 x 10^6 *is* a hell of a lot of money and seems out of sight for such a purpose. My humble suggestion would be to can the assessment, put some assessment tools online for teachers to use and use the money to make sure teaching is an attractive profession and put more aides in classes where needed in this age of kids with discipline problems or special needs. When my kids were at school in the 1970s, the teachers administered something called the Canadian Test of Basic Skills (the idea was to determine the grade level at which your kid was operating); it was not used by the provincial government to assess teachers or the kids, but it was something that the teachers could point to on parents night to indicate how your kid was doing. One advantage was that it was stress-free; it was just another day of school for the kids and the teachers did not have to worry about prepping them.
There are unlikely to be any public issues with this year’s exams – the election comes straight afterwards and no one knows who will win. That tends to concentrate bureaucrats’ minds. Very conservative, defensive exams – yes – obvious stuff-ups less likely
Yes, I’m sure that’s the goal. The exams will suck again, of course, but if they don’t contain neon-signed screw-ups then it’ll all stay out of the newspapers, and VCAA and the Minister will be happy.
Back of the envelope, $200M is 300 mid-level bureaucrats’ salaries for 5 years. They currently have about 200 full time equivalent staff in total, so this does seem like a lot of money.
Obviously some of that is spent on IT upgrades etc – if you’ve ever used VASS you know it’s needed. But it still leaves a good chunk.
Now watch as I’m proved wrong and $170M goes out the door on consultancy fees.
Yeah it certainly sounds like a lot to me. But I have no idea what hardware etc might be required. And there is always the hope that they will buy and fill a few boats.
It’s always way more expensive than you think – IT costs a fortune. You are probably right I’m afraid on the consultants’ fees. Good consultants like Bennett are only used in an emergency I’m afraid so probably the Big 4 will do well. There will be reasons for the $200m because I’m guessing Treasury still put agencies through the wringer on costs, even if they’ve totally lost control of the budget due to this Government.