VCAA Organisational Review | Summary and MAV Perspective 

September 2025

At the Minister for Education's request, the Secretary to the Department of Education established an independent review of the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) in December 2024, following issues during the 2024 Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) examinations. 

The review was led by Dr Yehudi Blacher PSM. Early this year stakeholders were invited to make submissions. MAV made two submissions: one on behalf of members and one on behalf of staff. A link to the review can be found here. 

Stage Two report 

The second and final stage examined the VCAA's structure, operations, technology, governance, culture, and capability. 

Dr Blacher's 11 recommendations 

1. Retain the VCAA as a statutory authority. 
2. Strengthen the Board's governance focus on key reforms, with refreshed oversight committees. 
3. Clarify the VCAA's relationship with the Department of Education. 
4. Establish a sustainable VCAA budget. 
5. Implement structural changes to strengthen accountability and refocus on critical capability uplift. 
6. Reset organisational leadership, capabilities, and culture, commencing with a progressive spill-and-fill of senior roles. 
7. Critically review and redesign operating policies and processes. 
8. Continue strengthening end-to-end examination processes, with stronger early-stage process management and enhanced integrity controls. 
9. Establish a clear technology roadmap, prioritising the most critical operational risks. 
10. Reset external stakeholder relationships and strengthen the focus on external "customer" needs. 
11. Maintain an Independent Monitor for a further 12 months, or until the Minister is satisfied that the VCAA has the systems and processes to perform its functions effectively. 

Government response: The government has accepted all recommendations. 

MAV surveyed members and Victorian teachers to inform our submission to the VCAA Root and Branch Consultation, receiving 54 detailed responses that captured on-the-ground experiences and perspectives. This feedback directly shaped our collated submission on behalf of the MAV community; the recommendations below align closely with what respondents told us. 

Impact of MAV member submission 

• SACs, audits, and assessment clarity 
  Members highlighted unclear SAC expectations, heavy workload, and a punitive audit tone; they asked for exemplars and clearer guidance. The review proposes a risk-based audit model, reduced double-handling, a more constructive tone, and broader access to marking guides for all VCE teachers after exams. 
• Communication, transparency, and teacher trust 
  Members asked for earlier, clearer communication, real feedback loops, and channels beyond the Bulletin, and flagged low trust in exam writing. The review recommends a reset of stakeholder relationships, principles for school communications during pressure periods, and mechanisms to show how teacher input is used. 
• Digital experience and practical support 
  Members pointed to broken links, hard-to-navigate sites, and patchy F–10 assessment resources. The review responds with a technology roadmap, consolidation on modern tools, better workflow systems, and a single helpdesk/CRM so queries are tracked and reused. It also reviews the Digital Assessment Library (DAL) given low take-up and high cost. 
• Role clarity (VCAA vs Department) 
  Members highlighted confusion about roles. The review recommends formal protocols clarifying accountabilities and information sharing to end “independence” misunderstandings. 
• Curriculum load, timing, and review triggers 
  Members asked for simpler, clearer documents, less overload, and earlier exemplars—especially where late guidance forced re-teaching. The review proposes thresholds and triggers for VCE/F–10 reviews, tighter sequencing, and earlier publication of support materials. 
• Exams: quality assurance and integrity 
  Members sought stronger QA, transparency of marking, and clear panel processes. The review adds single-exam-owner accountability, better role clarity, improved panel recruitment/onboarding, and stronger integrity controls. It also streamlines special provisions with clearer rules and earlier application windows. 
• Scope and subject mix 
  Members raised concerns about manageability and classroom alignment. The review proposes reviewing low-enrolment subjects and alternative models to reduce complexity. 

The review explicitly relied on stakeholder submissions. While subject associations (including MAV) and our members are not named, the recommendations, especially on audits/SACs, communication and trust, technology/website and customer management, role clarity with the Department, curriculum review timing, DAL, and exam QA, strongly suggest our Member Perspectives input helped shape several recommendations. 

For more details or to give your feedback please email MAV CEO, Jen Bowden jbowden@mav.vic.edu.au 

Alignment with CPTAV's summary 

MAV works closely with other subject associations to support Victorian teachers. The review aligns strongly with CPTAV's observations: 

• Curriculum managers' experience 
  The review notes some curriculum managers steward subjects they haven't taught and recommends adding roles where spans are too broad. (Mathematics has a long history of highly qualified managers with broad classroom experience.) 
• "Distribute the full marking guide for all exams"
  A concrete recommendation provides detailed exam marking guides to all VCE teachers post-exam. 
• Study design review process (no fixed end dates) 
  Clear triggers/criteria and a documented initiation process are proposed, overseen at executive/Board level. 
• Professionalism and process consistency 
  Actions include establishing a transformation/program-management function, locking timelines, documenting "the VCAA way", and adopting a customer-service orientation for teacher support. 
• Stakeholder relationships / "customer" focus
  Recommendation 10 sets frameworks, feedback loops, school-comms principles, and visible use of stakeholder input. 
• Exam panels: recruitment, consistency, feedback, induction 
  Systematic talent pipelines (including universities/peak bodies), improved onboarding, and feedback for panel members are proposed. Barriers for government-school teachers are flagged, with a call for Department support. 
• Special provisions - simpler and earlier 
  Streamlined forms, two application windows, clearer decision rules, and earlier certainty for students. 
• IT processes 
  VASS remediation is named the top tech priority, with APS/VOSS issues also documented. 

The review acknowledges poor engagement and proposes a principals/teachers advisory committee for communications testing. Beyond the heading "Engagement with teachers and subject matter associations", it does not clearly define a formal role for subject associations—an omission worth addressing in implementation.