…
2026 VCE English exam: What to learn from last year's mistakes
Hi all, in preparation for the upcoming exam, here's what to learn from last year's mistakes.
2025 median exam grade: B. VCAA does not publish an exact median mark.
Average: 32.9/60, or 54.8%.
40,768 students assessed. 7.7% received A+. The 2025 A+ cutoff was 45/60. That is last year's cutoff, not a prediction for 2026.
Figures: VCAA's 2025 grade distribution, written examination on page 3: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2026-04/vce_english_ga25.pdf.
The 2025 examiner report: https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2026-04/2025-English-report.docx reports section averages on a 10-mark scale: A 5.4, B 5.4 and C 5.5. These are whole-section results, not marks for individual mistakes below. Percentages are rounded. My examples illustrate the fixes; they are not full essays or VCAA model answers.
Section A: Answering a theme instead of the topic
Section average: 5.4/10. 1% received 10/10.
Where students went wrong: They recognised a familiar theme and wrote their prepared discussion, missing the narrower question. Some covered only one of two concepts.
What they should have done: Make the relationship in the topic the argument of the essay.
For the Flames topic about love and destruction, a paragraph about love alone does not answer it. Explain how an act of love causes harm, then use another part of the text to test whether that connection always holds. You can challenge the claim that they are inseparable. You cannot drop destruction from the discussion.
Section A: Plot summaries dressed up as paragraphs
Where students went wrong: They organised essays around characters or events and added linking words without explaining how their ideas connected.
What they should have done: Give each paragraph a claim about the author's ideas, then show how the next paragraph develops or challenges it.
For the Oedipus topic about the danger of seeking truth, explain what the discovery costs him. Then consider whether accepting that truth has value despite the cost. That gives you an argument about the question. Retelling what Oedipus discovers does not.
Section A: Quotes that prove something happened
Where students went wrong: They inserted memorised quotes that did not help answer the topic, or treated a quote as proof of a plot point.
What they should have done: Explain what the language reveals about the specific idea being discussed.
For Jane Eyre's personal freedom topic, the bird and net imagery can support an argument about Jane rejecting control. Explain that connection and what her refusal shows about her agency. Naming the metaphor and moving on leaves the analysis unfinished.
Section B: Forcing a prepared piece onto the title
Section average: 5.4/10. 1% received 10/10.
Where students went wrong: They bent a rehearsed piece to fit the task, leaving only a loose connection to the title or framework.
What they should have done: Let the supplied title shape the idea you develop. Use a stimulus from that same framework. You cannot mix a title from one framework with another framework's stimuli.
In 2025, Origins belonged to Writing about country. A piece about where someone's sense of belonging began could work. A generic account of winning a race does not become a country piece because you add the word origins at the end.
Section B: Including a stimulus without doing anything with it
Where students went wrong: Some wrote about two children playing a board game because the stimulus showed one, but developed no meaningful connection to the framework or title.
What they should have done: Use the stimulus to develop an idea. Give the piece a purpose beyond recounting events.
A board game could reveal how someone responds when they lose control. Let a decision during the game change what the narrator understands about play. The image then affects the meaning of the piece instead of just supplying its setting.
Section C: Claiming the reader feels something
Section average: 5.5/10. 0.6% received 10/10.
Where students went wrong: They named a technique and claimed it made readers shocked or guilty. Some overstated its effect as though every reader had to agree.
What they should have done: Identify which readers are being targeted and explain why that detail could change their view.
Adut compared the cost of fireworks with money that could fund community projects. Explain how that makes residents weigh a short celebration against services they could use throughout the year. The point is the choice he puts in front of them, not simply that a large number sounds shocking.
Section C: Describing the images and moving on
Where students went wrong: They identified the dog photo or listed arguments without showing how the elements worked together.
What they should have done: Connect the visual to the surrounding argument and the change the writer wants.
The frightened dog makes the harm to pets visible. Alongside the discussion of noise, it gives pet owners a reason to question the fireworks. The proposed light show then offers a way to keep the celebration while reducing that concern. Explain that progression.
Take one paragraph from your last practice essay. Underline the sentence that answers the actual task. If you cannot find it, rewrite that paragraph before writing another full essay.
0 repliesReply